GURSHAVINDER SINGH Vs. BALTEJ KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for divorce filed by the husband on the ground that the wife is guilty of cruelty and desertion. The husband had narrated several instances of cruelty, which had been denied by the wife. On the issue of desertion, the contention was that the wife had left the husband company in June, 1997 and that she had been living away without reasonable excuse. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the trial Court was swayed by the fact that the wife had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore, the allegation of divorce on the ground of desertion cannot stand.

(2.) The contention of the husband had been essentially on certain oral assertions and the instances of cruelty attributed by the husband on his wife were; (i) the wife had been insisting of setting up a separate house away from the parents of the house; (ii) the husband s paternal uncle Surender Singh had died in February, 1990 and at the time when the whole family was grieving, the wife had expressed that it would have been better if the husband s father himself had died in spite of his brother; (iii) the wife left the house abruptly in December, 1991 and when the petitioner along with one Chanan Singh, PW-4 went to the village Banwala Hawanta to bring her back, the wife abused and insulted the petitioner in the presence of Chanan Singh and said that she never considered the petitioner as a husband; (iv) she threatened that she will commit suicide by touching live electric wire when she was asked to do household chores; (v) during the festival of Baisakhi in 1997, the wife hurled utensils in the courtyard and abused the petitioner when he was sitting in the company of several relatives; (vi) she had given a false complaint under Section 406/498A IPC against the petitioner, his parents and brother that he was making demands of dowry nearly 9 months after the marriage which itself, according to the husband, was proof of the falsity of the complaint.

(3.) The trial Court had reasoned that if all the instances of cruelty had been genuine, the husband should have taken criminal case already against his wife. The trial Court accepted a justification theory trotted out by the wife that the husband was pressurising the wife and her parents to give Rs.2 lacs for purchase of some property in Malout. The attempt of the appellant in appeal would be to show, therefore, that such a contention was also false, for she did not give any details of the property alleged to have been negotiated to be purchased by the husband. The counsel would argue that even the brother of the wife appearing as RW-3 stated that he was not aware that the petitioner had purchased any plot from any one and therefore, the contention that the wife and her parents were being compelled to give some amount for purchase of property could not be true.