GURJANT SINGH Vs. NACHHATTAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband has filed this appeal whose petition for Nachhattar Kaur dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur.

(2.) The marriage between the parties took place somewhere in the year 1967. Out of this wedlock a son named Gurlal Singh was born. The husband-appellant alleged in his petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act that the respondent-wife has deserted him for a continuous period of two years prior to the presentation of the application and has treated him with cruelty. Earlier on April 8, 1975, he filed a petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation. The father of the respondent-wife filed a complaint under section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Mansa, on 16-12-1975 against him, his father, mother and brother. Proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance were also filed by the respondent-wife. Due to all these cases the appellant was worried. The father of the respondent being a clever man suggested that if he withdrew the petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, then he will get the complaint filed by him withdrawn. On this assurance the petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act was withdrawn and consequently the proceedings under section 406/420, Indian Penal Code, and under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also closed. According to the appellant, the respondent-wife then showed her inclination to conic to his house but in fact never came to him and again filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. She also moved the Police authorities, as a result of which proceedings under section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started against him. According to the appellant making false allegations against him and the other members of his family and this sort of treatment given to him tentamounted to cruelty. The respondent in the written statement admitted the marriage and+the birth then their son Gurlal Singh. She alleged that her husband maltreated her and always demanded It ore money from her parents. She admitted that a petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the husband and she also filed a petition for maintenance. She further stated shat the husband in his statement made in December, 1976 admitted that the had started residing in his house and since then she was residing in the house or her husband but he started residing with his parents in a different house and did not give her maintenance. Under these circumstances she was forced to file another application for the grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations of desertion and cruelty were denied. On these pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge found under issue No. 1 that since December, 1975 the respondent-wife is residing in the husband's house and there had not been any desertion on her part. Under issue No. 2 it was concluded that it is the husband who is responsible to drive the respondent to Court for seeking redress to her grievance. There is no evidence on record on the basis of which it may he held that the respondent ever treated the petitioner with cruelty. As a result of these findings, the petition for dissolution of marriage was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the husband has came up in appeal in this Court.