JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.—This First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15 July 2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court in Divorce Petition No. 16 of 2015 (Major Narendra Singh Rana v. Smt. Pooja Rana), whereby the application moved by the appellant-wife has been rejected holding that the divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 (1) (1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 1 on the ground of cruelty is maintainable despite the fact that the respondent-husband has embraced Christian religion on the date of filing the divorce petition. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows : The respondent-husband married the appellant-wife on 29 April 2007 at Aonla, Bareilly according to Hindu rites. Soon thereafter, the relation between them started deteriorating on account of appellant-wife pressing that her husband should not visit his parents. On a number of occasions, she also created scenes while dining together in restaurants as she disliked non-vegetarian food which was preferred by the respondent. Discord between them rose to the level that one day she consumed all the medicines which were lying in their house in an attempt to commit suicide. Ultimately the respondent filed the petition for divorce on 25 March 2015. 3. The appellant has filed written statement wherein she has denied all the allegations and made counter allegations against her husband that he is in the habit of consuming liquor, indulges in ‘Tona-Totka’ and also makes a demand of Rs. 25.00 lacs or a flat to be arranged by her parents. She is totally dependent upon her father alongwith her small daughter. She also took preliminary objection that the petition of the respondent is not maintainable because he has embraced Christianity as per his own admission in the petition. 4. During the pendency of the divorce petition, she moved an application dated 30 March 2017 before the Court below alleging that her husband admitted on oath that he had adopted Christian religion and that at the time of filing the petition he was a Christian and yet he has filed this petition under the provisions of the Act. According to her, a petition for divorce can be filed under the Act when both the parties are Hindu. Hence, present proceedings under the Act are not maintainable. 5. According to her, a petition for divorce can be filed under the Act when both the parties are Hindu. Hence, present proceedings under the Act are not maintainable. 5. An objection dated 10 July 2017 was filed by the husband stating therein that another attempt was being made by the wife to delay the judicial process. The cross-examination took place on 28 February 2017 and thereafter also regular adjournments were being moved by the appellant. He further stated that he had already mentioned in the petition that he was Hindu at the time of marriage and had adopted Christianity before the filing of petition. His marriage took place at Aonla at Bareilly as per Hindu rites. The change of religion does not affect the status of his marriage which was solemnized according to the provisions of the Act. He had filed divorce petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act on 25 March 2015. The marriage was solemnized under Hindu law and hence the said marriage could be dissolved only as per the provisions of Hindu law. He relied upon the judgment rendered in Suresh Babu v. Leela, 2006 (3) KLT 891 and stated that under Section 13 (1) of the Act any marriage solemnized whether before or after the commencement of the Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the grounds which are enumerated in the said Section and since his marriage was solemnized under Hindu law, he was well within his right to file the divorce petition under the said Act. Section 2 of the Act provides that the Act would apply to any person who is a Hindu, which would imply that it would apply to a person who was Hindu at the time of marriage. The relevant date, on which both the parties are required to be Hindu, in order for the Act to apply, is the date of the marriage and not the date when the petition for divorce is filed. 6. Upon consideration of the matter, learned Court below rejected the application of the appellant-wife on 15 July 2017 holding that the divorce petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act was maintainable because at the time of marriage both the parties were Hindu and their marriage was performed according to Hindu rites. 6. Upon consideration of the matter, learned Court below rejected the application of the appellant-wife on 15 July 2017 holding that the divorce petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act was maintainable because at the time of marriage both the parties were Hindu and their marriage was performed according to Hindu rites. Hence the respondent-husband was entitled to file a petition for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty. It was further expressed by the Court below that the said application had been moved with a view to delay the disposal of the petition as the appellant-wife was continuously seeking adjournments. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. Section 13 of the Act provides as under: ‘13. Divorce—(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party- (i) x x x x x (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (ib) x x x x ‘ 8. From a perusal of the above provision, it is apparent that the legislature has used the expression ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ and not their religion i.e. a Hindu husband or a Hindu wife. Therefore, a husband irrespective of the fact whether he adopts some other religion later on, should be entitled to file a petition for divorce under the Act provided the marriage was performed according to Hindu rites. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited a judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in Vilayat Raj Alias Vilayat Khan v. Sunila, 1983 LawSuit (Del) 44. The Delhi High Court considered whether an apostate of Hindu religion can file a petition under the Act seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized under the Act prior to change of religion by him. The facts of this case were that on 17 June 1973, Sunila, respondent had married Vilayat Raj, petitioner. The parties were Hindu at that time. The marriage took place in Delhi which was solemnized in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremony on 15 September 1980. A child was born out of this marriage and subsequently the parties separated on 1 October 1981. The parties were Hindu at that time. The marriage took place in Delhi which was solemnized in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremony on 15 September 1980. A child was born out of this marriage and subsequently the parties separated on 1 October 1981. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act seeking dissolution of above marriage on the ground of cruelty. After service was effected on Sunila, she filed an application praying that the petition under Section 13 of the Act was not maintainable because the petitioner was admittedly a Muslim on the date, the petition was filed and as such he ceased to be Hindu and had lost the right to move the petition under the Act. The learned Additional District Judge held that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was not a Hindu at the time of presentation of the petition. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Additional District Judge. Paragraph No. 24 of the said judgment is relevant and is quoted herein below: “(24) The petition, as already noted, is under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. It has nothing to do with the ground which would be available in the present case, to the respondent under Section 13 (1) (ii). Therefore, the crux of the case is, does the applicability of the Act depend on whether the parties are Hindus at the time of solemnization of the marriage or must they also be Hindus at the time of filing of the petition? The marriage sought to be dissolved under the Act has to be a Hindu marriage. It can be dissolved only in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It would, therefore, appear that when Section 2 says that this Act applies to any person who is a Hindu, it also contemplates a person who was a Hindu at the time of marriage but has since ceased to be a Hindu at the time when the petition is presented. The relevant date on which both the parties are required to be Hindus in order for the Act to apply is the date of the marriage.” 10. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court. The relevant date on which both the parties are required to be Hindus in order for the Act to apply is the date of the marriage.” 10. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court holding that the petition for divorce would be maintainable under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act on the ground of cruelty. Both the husband and wife were Hindu at the time of performance of their marriage and it was on a subsequent date that the husband adopted Christianity. This appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.