AMARJIT SINGH Vs. JASBIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed against the decree of dismissal for divorce filed by the husband on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. Both the grounds were found against the husband and his petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, the Appellant has challenged the findings of the lower Court.

(2.) Even before adverting to the merit of the case, It becomes necessary to also address the issue of want of jurisdiction as found by the trial Court. In this case, the husband had filed the petition for divorce before the District Court, Faridkot earlier and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn in January, 1999 when the parties FAO No. 127-M of 2002 -2 compromised the matter and started living at village Toot. It was this joint living which according to the Petitioner that gave him the right to prosecute the case before the District Court at Ferozepur. The Court held that there was no proof that the husband and wife cohabited at the village Toot and found therefore, that the Court at Faridkot had no jurisdiction to file the petition. I am of the view that it is wrong for a Judge to find the issue of jurisdiction against the person and at the same time also enter the findings on the merits of the case. The issue of territorial jurisdiction must be taken up as far as possible at the earliest and if a petition was taken in the reply that the particular Court does not have jurisdiction, the trial Court must take a decision on that on the basis of material available before it or if it is necessary that any oral evidence must be let in to determine the issue of jurisdiction, it should be taken up as preliminary issue. It will be wrong for a Court to take up the issue of territorial jurisdiction along with other issues and decide that the Court did not have a jurisdiction to entertain the petition and at the same time also adjudicate on the merits of the claim. I do not want to detain the case for consideration on the issue of jurisdiction and take the Court before which the case was filed as having the requisite jurisdiction and I will proceed to examine the merits of the case.

(3.) As regards the claim by the husband that the wife was guilty of cruelty, the instance of cruelty were general in nature namely that the parties were previously married and one spouse was a widow, the other was a divorcee. Both of them have children through their respective spouses through their earlier marriage. It was also an inter FAO No. 127-M of 2002 -3 caste marriage and differences in caste which were not predominant at that time when they contracted the marriage came to surface and they saw themselves at loggerheads on minor issues. The general allegation made by the husband against the wife was that he was not employed while she was employed in government service and she was arrogant. He would also complain that she did not respect his parents and would also state that she did not wash his clothes or was not prepared to cook for him. Social habits are changing and the modes of adjustment between spouses would also require to be changed. The conventional stereotyping of women as persons who should be cooking at all times and be washing clothes for husband, must be seen in the present social context, where the women are getting employed. They may have relatively lesser time to devote for cooking or they may have little time doing the typical household chores of a woman, who is otherwise not employed outside. To a working woman, her duties are confined not to merely to take care of the household. In situations, where the wife also goes for employment, it might require a greater sense of adjustment by the husband and he may also have to be more resourceful and participative in the household chores. I do not take any of these grounds alleged by the husband that she is disrespectful to him or does not treat his parents properly or she does not cook or wash clothes as instances of cruelty. On the other hand, I will find that these allegations cannot find a cause of action for complaints at all.