KARNAIL SINGH Vs. SUKHJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KARNAIL Singh (husband) has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.10.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Bathinda, who allowed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") filed by Sukhjit Kaur alias Bholo (wife) and passed a decree for dissolution of marriage.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Sukhjit Kaur alias Bholo filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage against her husband Karnail Singh by inter-alia pleading that she was married to Karnail Singh about 7 years ago in Shergarhia, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) and after the marriage they lived together at village Kothaguru, district Bathinda. Out of the wedlock two female children were born and both have expired. It is alleged by the petitioner-wife that soon after the marriage the appellant-husband started maltreating her on the ground that she had brought insufficient dowry, whereas her parents had spent sufficient amount at the time of marriage. The appellant-husband started making more demands of dowry which her parents could not meet. It was further alleged by the petitioner-wife that the appellant-husband was a truck driver. He is addicted to intoxicants and takes liquor daily. He put pressure upon her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents to purchase a truck but her parents could not meet this illegal demand of the appellant. Thereafter she was turned out of her matrimonial home about 2-1/2 years prior to the filing of the petition in three plain cloths. She was given beatings and all the gold and valuables were retained by the appellant. About 15 days prior to the filing of the petition on 8.8.1995 a Panchayat consisting of the father of petitioner namely Darbara Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Thana Singh and Major Singh went to the appellant and requested him to rehabilitate the petitioner but he flatly refused to do so. It was also pleaded by the wife that her husband had deserted her for continuous period of more than two years prior to the filing of the petition.

(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-