LAWS(P&H)-2000-12-100

HARJIT SINGH Vs. GURDEEP KAUR

Decided On December 19, 2000
HARJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
GURDEEP KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a husband's appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.1.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who dismissed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(2.) IT may be mentioned here that the present appeal was filed in the High Court at the first instance in the year 1990. It came up for hearing before an Hon'ble Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal in limine. The appellant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court which vide order dated 14.1.1991 set aside the findings of the High Court and it was observed that the High Court should have resorted to first appeal and heard it on merits. The appeal was, again, filed in the year 1991 and I am disposing of this appeal with the assistance of the counsel for the parties on merits.

(3.) NOTICE of the petition was given to the respondent who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. According to her, she never insisted to live separately from the parents of her husband nor she administered any Tabeez. She also denied having visited Agra, Fatehpur Sikri or Hazoor Sahib along with the appellant in the month of August, 1983 or thereafter. Instead, she blamed the husband of having treated her with cruelty after the solemnisation of the marriage as he was dissatisfied with the dowry and also the presents given by her parents at the time of Chola ceremony of the child in the month of January, 1984. She further alleged the appellant and his brother had mercilessly beaten her a day before the delivery of the child with the result that she developed complications and had to be operated upon at the time of birth of the child in Sachdeva Nursing Home at Faridabad. Another fact pleaded by the respondent was that she was driven out of the matrimonial home along with infant child on 19.1.1985 and despite her parents having approached the appellant and his parents several times, the appellant flately refused to keep her with him.