PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jaswant Singh, respondent herein filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce against his wife Paramjit Kaur @ Tej Kaur, appellant herein. Hereinafter, Paramjit Kaur-appellant will be referred to as wife and Jaswant Singh-respondent as husband. Learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa by his judgment and decree dated January 16, 1992 accepted the petition of the husband and passed a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties. This is how the wife has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree aforesaid.

(2.) Marriage between the parties was solemnised on March 23, 1980 and they lived as husband and wife for some time. A son and a daughter were born as a result of this wedlock. The children are residing with their mother, appellant. The husband filed a petition under Section 13 (1-A)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') for dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said petition was contested by the wife and was decided by the learned District Judge by order dated April 4, 1989. Learned District Judge having regard to the interest of the minor children and in order to afford the parties an occasion to sink their differences and to enable them to reproach and reconcile, granted a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act, instead of dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act. It is not necessary to notice in this case the allegations of cruelty which were levelled against the wife in the previous petition. After a lapse of one year, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 (1-A)(ii) of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that there has been no resumption co-habitation between the parties for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of the decree for judicial separation. It was also alleged that the decree passed by the District Judge on April 4, 1989 became final, no appeal having been preferred against the said decree. It was further stated in the said petition that it had not been presented in collusion with the wife and there had been no delay in filing the same.

(3.) The wife put in appearance and admitted the broad allegations levelled by the husband. She, however, pleaded that cruelty alleged on her part in the previous petition had not been proved and it was rather the husband himself who was cruel to her and consequently responsible for destroying the matrimonial home. Allegation of illicit relations of the husband with one Pammi daughter of Bakshish Singh, his mother's sister's daughter was also made. A plea was also raised that she along with her mother, her maternal uncle Pritam Singh and others tried their best to persuade the husband that he should mend his ways but he never tried to reconcile the matter. Even after passing of the decree for judicial separation. She and her mother took all steps for reconciliating the matter by forgetting the past and with this attitude approached the husband's family so that the parties could live together but their efforts bore no fruit. In these circumstances, it was pleaded that the husband was taking advantage of his own wrong. On these pleadings of the parties, learned Additional District Judge by judgment and decree dated January 16, 1992 allowed the petition and passed a decree of divorce in favour of the husband and against the wife, as already noticed above.