RAJVEER SINGH Vs. GAGANJOT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-husband has come up in appeal before this Court seeking setting aside of judgment and decree dtd. 11/12/2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambala, whereby petition filed by him under Ss. 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') for a decree of nullity and dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, has been dismissed.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant that marriage between him and the respondent was solemnized as per Sikh rites and ceremonies at Sirhind Club, Ambala Cantt on 18/11/2010. The marriage was performed in simple manner, in which no dowry was given or taken. After the marriage the parties resided together for a short span of time. The marriage could not be consummated due to delaying tactics being adopted by the respondent. From the very beginning of the marriage the attitude and behaviour of the respondent was not good and cordial towards the appellant and his family members. Respondent pressurized the appellant to live separately in her parental home as 'Ghar Jawai'. The marriage between them could not be consummated due to ill advise given to the respondent by her mother. The respondent even did not allow him to co- habit with her. Mother of the appellant was suffering from cancer and his father was a heart patient. The respondent flatly refused to look after his aged ailing parents. On the asking of the respondent, on 18/5/2011 appellant left the respondent at her parental home at Lucknow as there she wanted to get admission in Ph.D. She took away a diamond ring, a gold chain with diamond pandle, two gold karas, a pair of diamond tops, a gold chain with pandle, a diamond pandle, one necklace, a pair of gold rings, one silver ring, five suits, six sarees and makeup kit along with her without informing the appellant. At that time, appellant was serving as a Field Major in the Indian Army and was posted at intense counter insurgency and high-altitude area. When appellant came back from his job in the month of August 2011, he along with his mother Gurbachan Kaur went to Lucknow on 17/8/2011 to bring back the respondent to her matrimonial home but the respondent refused to go with them.

(3.) Respondent-wife contested the petition admitting the relationship between the parties. She denied that the marriage was performed in a simple manner or that no dowry was given or taken in the marriage. In fact, the marriage was solemnized with great pomp and show. Her father spent more than Rs.25,00,000.00 on the marriage. A Swift Dzire car, a bullet motorcycle, costly household articles and cash amount were given to the appellant and his family members as per the demand made by them at the time of ring ceremony and the marriage ceremony. The appellant did not get the car registered in his name. He returned the documents of the car only after interference by their close relatives. Respondent denied that the marriage was not consummated. It was duly consummated during her stay with the appellant. She denied that her behaviour had been cruel towards the appellant or his family members. In fact, the appellant himself had not performed his marital obligations. It was further denied that respondent's mother used to interfere in her marital affairs. Respondent was turned out of her matrimonial home by the appellant. Appellant was reluctant to give permission to her to take admission in Ph.D. Appellant and her parents used to quarrel with her. She denied that appellant and his mother came to Lucknow to take her back. She alleged that rather they raised an illegal demand of money and refused to take her along with them till their demand was met. It was denied that she refused to join the company of the appellant. Respondent alleged that appellant gave her beatings and turned her out of her matrimonial home. It was further pleaded that respondent engaged a counsel to appear in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Sec. 9 of the Act of 1955 but due to some lapse on the part of her counsel, neither she nor her counsel could appear in the Court.