RATANDEEP SINGH AHUJA Vs. HARPREET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the husband against the order dtd. 8/5/2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby his petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (hereinafter 'the Act'), seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the parties were married according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Ludhiana on 11/11/2012. After marriage they cohabited together as husband and wife. No child was born of this wedlock. It is appellant's case that soon after their marriage the respondent started pressurising him to leave his job as C.O., Dental Centre, Air Force Station, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh so as to settle in Patiala where her parental home was. She is stated to be dominating and disrespectful to him and his family and picked up quarrel for no reasons. She is also stated to have physically assaulted the petitioner at times and misbehaved with him and insulted him in the presence of his relatives and friends. It is further alleged that the respondent frequently behaved offensively and arrogantly using bad language, and would lock herself up in her room for hours threatening to do something drastic and implicate the appellant in criminal case involving non-bailable offences. Appellant states that this caused him great mental tension and agony. It is averred that to please the respondent the appellant also brought her to her parental home on Lohri soon after their marriage in the month of April 2013, as the respondent preferred to stay mostly in her parental home. He brought her back on 24/4/2013. The appellant was transferred from Gorakhpur to Udhampur on 28/8/2013 and was to join on 5/9/2013. During this period while they were staying at the appellant's parents' house the respondent left from there on 1/9/2013 without any reasonable cause and she took away all her dowry articles including the ones given to her by the appellant's parents and she did not join the appellant's company thereafter though he requested and pleaded with her several times. Accordingly it was pleaded that the respondent had deserted the appellant.

(3.) On the other hand, respondent denied all the allegations and stated that in fact she had been deserted by the appellant. She stated that prior to her marriage she had worked as Ayurvedic Medical Officer for four years in the State Health Department.