BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. RAJNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-petitioner filed a divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion which was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Marriage between the parties took place on 16.2.1991 and a female child was born out of the wedlock in December, 1991, who is living with the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband filed a divorce petition alleging inter alia that the respondent-wife was short tempered and quarrels and wanted a separate living from his parents; the respondent-wife's mother and their family friends came to the house of the appellant-husband on 15.9.1991 and gave beatings to him; the mother of the respondent-wife along with her sons and family friends attacked the parents of the appellant-husband for which a case was registered on 18.9.1991 with the police; the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home but resumed cohabitation in July, 1992 and again left the matrimonial home on 23.8.1992, the appellant-husband was attacked on 10.11.1992. The respondent-wife contested the petition stating that she was taunted by the appellant-husband and his family members for bringing less dowry and was given beatings and then she was turned out of the house in August, 1992. After appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court rejected the appellant-husband's version. It was observed that the appellant-husband was not able to lead any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the respondent-wife used to go to cinema with different persons and the version given by the appellant-husband did not inspire confidence. It was further observed that the proceedings recorded in the compromise memo dated 18.6.1991 Exhibit PW6/A showed that the appellant-husband had assured better behaviour towards the respondent-wife while no regret was recorded from the side of the respondent-wife which showed that it was the appellant-husband who was at fault. It was further observed that the allegations of the appellant-husband were not supported by any contemporaneous evidence. The trial Court also found that the conduct of the appellant-husband had forced the respondent-wife to live separately which could not be held to be desertion. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court, this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-husband has challenged the findings of the trial Court but nothing has been pointed out as to how the finding was erroneous learned counsel for the respondent-wife has supported the findings of the trial Court and has also sought an order on an application filed under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses.