BALVINDER KAUR Vs. SARDAR GURMEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by wife under Section 19 of the Family Court Act. 1984, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is against the order dated 28.5.1997. passed by the learned additional Principal Judge, Family Court. Kanpur Nagar, decreeing the husband-respondent's Matrimonial Case No. 530 of 1993 filed for grant of divorce of the appellant.

(2.) The portrayal of the relevant facts are in a narrow compass : 2.1. The respondent, filed the case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Marriage Act'} impleading the appellant as the sole opposite party, who is employed as a teacher in Khalsa Girls Inter College. Kanpur, earning from salary and tutions around Rs. 6.000 per month, praying to grant divorce in his favour by dissolving their marriage solemnized on 30.4.1989 alleging, inter alia, to the effect that they are Sikh by birth ; their marriage was solemnised as per the custom (which comes under the Hindu religious customs) at Govind Nagar, Kanpur on 30.4.1989 ; after their marriage the appellant came to his residence but from the very next day she started pressing him either to turn out his aged parents from the house or to separate himself from them or live in a house nearby the house of her parents or to live in her house ; he being a self-respecting man could not agree to any of the aforementioned inhumane demands and flatly refused to oblige her by accepting them which caused great annoyance to her, who became extremely unmanageable, violent and cruel inasmuch as she started picking up quarrels for no cause with him as well as his aged parents many a times she threw cup containing hot tea on him in presence of neighbours and relations but he tolerated all this hoping against hopes that one day she will improve her behaviour and shall discharge her marital obligations but all this went in vain and futile ; a son was born to them on 11.9.1990 who was named Master Guneet Singh but his birth also did not effect any change in her behaviour : the residence of her parents is situate nearby his house and she in his absence frequently used to visit her parents ; each time when she went to her parents she took with her some articles of his house and handed over them to her parents : on coming to know of the aforementioned acts he asked her not to do so but she refused to listen, rather she became more furious ; ultimately in the night of 28.12.1990 she left his house and went to her house with all her belongings--ornaments, clothes, etc., however, after great pursuatlon she returned back to his house after 6 months but left again in the night of 15.9.1992 of her own and this time she took with her 6 gold bangles, 2 ladies gold kara, 2 sets of gold necklace, 3 sets of gold ear tops, 3 gold rings, one Ginni and one gent's gold kara all belonging to him and his mother, valued at Rs. 1,75,000 in presence of Sri Gopal Singh, Sri Kundan Singh, Sri B. L. Bhatia, Sri Paramjeet Singh and others, none of them have been examined as his witnesses ; thus, the opposite party has deserted him wilfully for a period of three years which alone entitles him to seek the decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage ; he is also entitled for the said decree on the grounds of cruelty and mental torture ; he has been even to meet him, which is also an act of extreme cruelty on her part, the cause of action had accrued, firstly, on 30.4.1989 and thereafter on each day when she extended her cruel behaviour towards him and on 15.9.1992 when she of her. own will left his residence and did not return back thus deserting him without any cause. 2.2. The appellant in her written statement alleged, inter alia, to the effect that there was an affectionate relationship between her and her husband and on account of this reason a son was born to them after about 161/2 months of their marriage ; it is true that the house of her parents is nearby husband's house but she had never gone to her parents' house of her own and without permission ; since she is the only daughter of her parents they gave sufficient dowry of Rs. 1,50,000 to her husband ; since she is the only daughter she was sufficiently loved by her parents and taking undue pressure on her to bring Rs. 50,000 from her parents to invest the same in trade ; in the night of 28.12.1990 he assaulted her and forcibly drove her from his house and thereafter she went to her parents house and disclosed all the facts to them, who after listening them became very much worried, went to her husband, met him and gave to him a sum of Rs. 15,000 and somehow made him to keep her along with him ; despite this her husband puts in pressure on her to bring remaining amount and used to torture her ; on 15.9.1992 he assaulted her, got collected all the jewelleries which she was wearing and forcibly drove her out of his house that if she does not bring the balance amount of Rs. 35,000 she will be murdered ; despite all this her husband has been meeting her and at times used to stay at her residence but he never agreed to bring her to his house until and unless Rs. 35.000 is being handed over to him ; on 11.9.1994, the birth day of their son Guneet Singh, he came to her house and stayed with her in the night ; whenever he came to see their son Guneet he was never forbidden ; she is. not on a permanent employment rather she could get a temporary employment, it is totally wrong to say that she earns Rs. 6.000 per month either from lution or from in any manner, and that the suit be dismissed with costs.

(3.) The following issues were framed : (I) Whether the opposite party had behaved with cruelty with the applicant as alleged in his application? (II) Whether the opposite party has deserted the applicant two years prior to the institution of the suit? (III) To what relief the applicant is entitled to get?