SEETO WIFE OF GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Seeto appellant and Gurbachan Singh respondent were married in March, 1975. They lived together at the house of the respondent till February, 1976, when she left accompanied by her father and did not return thereafter. On March 15, 1979, the respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant which was allowed on December 1, 1979, on the statement of the appellant which she made on November 30, 1979. The appellant having failed to start living with the respondent the latter filed a petition for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce on December 19, 1979, on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide order dated May 28, 1980, dissolved the marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion on the part of the appellant while rejecting the other ground of cruelty on her part. It is against this order that the present appeal is directed.

(2.) Gurbachan Singh respondent appeared as a witness in support of is petition and stated that the appellant remained with him for about a year after after the marriage and they have no issue. In 1976 she left his house. He went to the house of his in-laws to bring back the appellant, but she did not return. He also approached Darbara Singh who had arranged their marriage for assistance to get back the appellant. Darbara Singh attempted twice to bring back the appellant, but without any success. A Panchayat consisting of Darbara Singh, Gurpyrar Singh, Lal Singh (father of the respondent) and the respondent went to the house of the appellant's father to bring back the appellant but without any favourable response. He then filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which was allowed. He ,had told the Court where the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was pending that he, would take the appellant - from court to his house, but the appellant insisted that she should be brought from her father's village. On December 2, 1979, he went to her in-laws to bring back the appellant, but she postponed her departure for a week. He again went to his in-law and a few other persons in the presence of the appellant. The respondent offered to take back the appellant to his house. In his cross-examination he denied having reported to the police about the insult that his father-in-law hurled upon him. He denied that he had filed a petition for divorce against the appellant to counteract the case filed against him by her for beating her and for paying her maintenance. P.W. Darbara Singh supported the case of the respondent and so did his father P.W. Lal Singh.

(3.) Seeto appellant also appeared as a witness and stated that after her marriage with the respondent they lived together for six months in the first year of their marriage. In the previous litigation for restitution of conjugal rights she had agreed to live with the respondent but the latter did not visit her father's house to take her. The respondent asked her to bring Rs. 10,000 from her father and on this issue he gave her beating. She had filed a complaint against the respondent for assaulting her and for maintenance. In her cross-examination she stated that the respondent demanded money 15 days after their marriage. She did not mention this fact in her pleadings in the previous litigation or in the present proceedings. She stated that under the circumstances it was not possible for her to live with the respondent because of latter's behaviour. She did not produce any other witness.