SURJIT SINGH Vs. GURDEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Surjit Singh son of Shri Jhaggar Singh son of Shri Saun Singh, appellant, is an old man of 70 years and this fact I am quoting from the proceedings dated 27.10.1999 recorded by the learned President of the Lok Adalat, and he has filed the present FAO No. 104-M/93 which has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.1.1993 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana who dismissed the petition of the petitioner, now appellant, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife Smt. Gurdev Kaur.

(2.) BEFORE I incorporate the pleadings of the parties in the subsequent portion of this judgment, I may stated that the main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed in the year 1991. Meaning thereby, at that time, Shri Surjit Singh should be about 60 years.

(3.) RESPONDENT filed the written-statement and denied the allegations. Respondent admitted the fact that petitioner owned land in village Chak Sarai and he had also purchased about 19 acres of land in District Muzaffarnagar. Also it was admitted by the respondent that their daughter died in the year 1979. It was also stated by the respondent that after the death of her daughter, respondent was not allowed to go to U.P. and she was completely deserted. She was compelled to live with her brothers and their family members in village Bagli. She denied the allegation of the petitioner that she developed illicit relations with Mohinder Singh. According to her, no incident as alleged by the petitioner took place on 16.11.1979. Respondent further alleged that as a matter of fact the petitioner had tried to kill her and caused serious injuries. She got the case registered against the petitioner under Sections 307/324 IPC and petitioner was convicted by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana under Sections 307/324 IPC. The security proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner on one occasion as there was imminent danger to the public peace. The discharge of the petitioner was on technical ground and not on merit. The petitioner wanted that respondent should starve to death and he wanted to contract a second marriage as the only daughter born to the respondent had died. On the application dated 19.10.1979, of the respondent, Gram Panchayat summoned the parties on 4.11.1979. Petitioner delivered the possession of about 15 bighas of land and residential house to the respondent in recognition of her pre-existing right of maintenance and he voluntarily made a statement to this effect. After few months, the petitioner threatened to take the possession from her as a result of that she had to file a civil suit for permanent injection against the petitioner. The petitioner admitted the execution of the writing dated 4.11.1979 before the panchayat in his written statement, but pleaded that the same was not acted upon. The petitioner mortgaged the said land without possession with his brother Bant Singh on 4.3.1980. The litigation with regard to these properties started and respondent was within her right to protect her interest. Even if, she has to stand up against the high-handedness of her earring husband. Respondent categorically denied the allegations that she was living in adultery or that she ever treated the petitioner with cruelty or that she deserted him since November, 1979. With this broad defence the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition.