PAWAN KUMAR Vs. PRERNA ALIAS BINDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pawan Kumar, the appellant-husband, is before this Court, by way of instant appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (as amended by Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976) (for short, 'the Act') to assail correctness of judgment and decree dated 20.03.2013, whereby learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Bathinda, (for short, 'the trial Court') has dismissed his petition (No.110 of 14.08.2010/RT No.15 of 08.04.2011/RT No.87 of 24.07.2012), which was brought by him for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife by a decree of divorce on the twin grounds of cruelty and desertion.

(2.) Respondent is contesting the appeal.

(3.) Petitioner/appellant had approached the learned trial Court on the averments that he had married with the respondent on 27.11.2009 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies; parties to the petition lived and cohabited together as husband and wife at village Kandu Khera just for 31/2 months; the marriage was duly consummated but no child was born; the respondent, who is an arrogant lady, used to fight with him on petty matters; immediately after inception of the marriage, respondent told the petitioner that she wanted to live in some city and started pressurizing him to live separately from his parents after taking share from the property; efforts put in by him to make the respondent mend her ways prove futile; at one occasion, respondent tried to cut her wrist vein and to fall in a canal that runs through his village; she even pushed herself in the canal and was pulled out by him and his parents with great difficulty; the incident was brought to the notice of respondent's parents; on 11.03.2008, respondent's brother came to the matrimonial home of the parties and took the respondent away without petitioner's consent; notwithstanding numerous phone calls made by him, the respondent did not return to the matrimonial home; when panchayat convened by the appellant/petitioner to bring the respondent back to the matrimonial home failed to fetch positive results, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, wherein a compromise was reached, whereunder the respondent was to return to the matrimonial home but the respondent did not honour the compromise; and that the respondent and her parents not only insulted the petitioner and his parents but also threatened to involve them in false criminal cases.