BALDEV SINGH Vs. RANI ALIAS HARMEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is husband's appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, dated 1.4.2000 dismissing his petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short to be referred as "the Act") on account of desertion and cruelty.

(2.) THE marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.3.1993. The appellant has sought dissolution of marriage alleging that the respondent is a lady of quarrelsome nature and short temperament and, therefore, she could not adjust in the family of the appellant. It is further alleged that the respondent pressurised the appellant to settle down at Mandi Dabwali or Bathinda City. She used filthy language against the appellant and his family members. She refused to do the house hold works. The respondent used to leave the house of the appellant without his consent and knowledge. She never gave due respect to the appellant and his parents. The respondent even insulted the appellant in the presence of his friends and relatives saying that her parents had ruined her life by marrying her in village with the appellant who does not know the standard of living a life of high status. It is further alleged that the respondent conceived pRegulation ncy in the month of March, 1994 and this fact was confirmed by the doctors of Civil Hospital, Goriwala on 25.5.1995 and the respondent was examined. However, the respondent left the matrimonial house on 28.5.1994 and aborted the pRegulation ncy without the consent and knowledge of the appellant. The appellant has further stated that he convened a Panchayat at the house of the respondent's father after the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and a petition under Section 9 of the Act wherein it was decided to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent. The petition for dissolution of marriage was filed on 27.9.1995 but the respondent did not give her consent for dissolution of marriage on 10.10.1995. Again the Panchayat intervened and a petition under Section 13-B of the Act was filed on 2.11.1995. The statements of the parties were recorded on 3.11.1995 and the case was adjourned to 4.5.1996. However, the respondent did not give her consent for dissolution of marriage on 4.5.1996 and consequently, the petition was dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the allegations of the wife were usual in nature and were not sufficient to hold that the husband was treated with cruelty. Referring to the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Panchayat the trial Court found that the dismissal of the petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent does not amount to cruelty, may be for whatever reason. The Court also found that outdoor ticket Ex. PA relied upon by the appellant to prove pRegulation ncy is a document manipulated by the appellant in order to prepare a ground for divorce. The said document has neither the names of the husband or father of respondent nor her address nor her age. Even such document does not contain signatures of Harmeet Kaur. The doctor does not know her personally nor he wrote any identification mark of the patient on the outdoor ticket.