DES RAJ Vs. PUSHPA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the spouses got married on June 12, 1979 at Ambala according to Hindu religious rites. The marriage was duly consummated and resultantly a son was born from this wedlock on April 24, 1980. The petitioner i.e. husband has filed the petition under Section 13(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for seeking a divorce by way of dissolution of the marriage. The plea set up is that the wife has strange habits and is of different temperament and does not give him proper respect. Resultantly, the relations between the two have become strained. It has been averred that she left the matrimonial home somewhere after the birth of the child and that a petition had been filed by her for judicial separation at Ambala and that the said petition was decreed vide judgment dated October 4, 1980. Earlier, a similar petition had been filed at Patiala but the same was dismissed vide order dated October 9, 1982 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The order was challenged by way of appeal before this Court which was also dismissed. Another petition was filed at Ludhiana which was again dismissed on same ground and the order was again challenged before this Court which was also dismissed. The wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of by way of compromise vide order dated 16.10.1986. It is alleged that on October 11, 1986, both the spouses had come to village Gardhiwala and the petitioner tried to persuade her to get herself transferred to district Hoshiarpur as the petitioner was also posted in District Jail, Hoshiarpur. The respondent-wife had agreed but later on refused to file an application for seeking transfer to Hoshiarpur on the premises that her parents did not agree for her transfer and to the contrary she suggested that the petitioner should get himself transferred to Ambala. This, ultimately made the relations strained between the two and the present petition has been filed.

(2.) THE respondent filed the written statement and contested the pleas of the petitioner. However, she has admitted the factum of marriage and the previous litigation stated to have been filed between the parties. She has alleged that in fact she had never been treated well by the petitioner and that differences arose between them. A compromise was effected between them on 24.8.1986 and in pursuant thereto she lived with the petitioner upto November 1986. It is alleged that the petitioner did not like to share her company and withdraw himself from her company. She has emphatically stated that she is ready and willing to live with the petitioner. Upon the pleadings of the parties issues have been struck and the evidence has been led by both the parties apart from the fact that they have stepped into witness box themselves for supporting their pleadings. The petitioner has not been able to bring only direct evidence in support of the allegations of cruelty alleged against the respondent. The only plea which has been taken is that the respondent has withdrawn from his company/society without any reasonable cause, which has caused mental cruelty to him as he has been denied the conjugal rights. However, it has been admitted that the respondent had filed some petition for judicial separation which was allowed and thereafter present petition had been filed in the jurisdiction of Patiala Courts which was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction and that the said order was upheld right upto this Court. It has also been admitted that a compromise was effected between the parties copy of which has been exhibited as Ex. P1 and thereafter both the spouses lived together. It is alleged that it was thereafter that the respondent again deserted the petitioner which gave a fresh cause of action and the present petition has been filed. The respondent in fact had given the assurance that if necessary she would give up service or she would get herself transferred at the place of posting of the petitioner. It is on these premises the application for maintenance had been withdrawn on 6.10.1986 after the respective statements of the parties had been recorded. The petitioner has admitted that he has been coming back to Gardhiwala everyday after attending to his job. He has also admitted that he never ever gave any money to his son and that he did not send any maintenance for the child. It has been noticed by the trial Court that the husband made a categorical statement on August 21, 1989 that he was not ready to keep the respondent with him even if she gets herself transferred to Hoshiarpur. He has further stated that he would keep her only if she resigned from her job.

(3.) AFTER considering the respective evidence of the parties, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and the same has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated April 16, 1990.