PARDEEP SINGH Vs. AMANDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by Pardeep Singhhusband feeling dissatisfied against judgment and decree dated Nov. 08, 2013 whereby a petition preferred by his wife-Amandeep Kaur under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short "the Act") as amended upto date, was allowed dissolving their marriage.

(2.) In nut-shell, the facts contained in the petition are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on Dec. 31, 2007 at village Jandiali as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated and the parties lived together as husband and wife at Samrala but no child was born out of their wedlock. It has been alleged by the respondent-wife that at the time of her marriage, huge amount of Rs. 9-10 lacs was incurred by her parents. Sufficient dowry was given including a motor-cycle make Hero-Honda which was though purchased in the name of the appellant-husband. The motorcycle was sold by the appellant-husband after few months of her marriage and entire amount was misappropriated by him to satisfy his lust. The appellant-husband as well as his parents started raising demand of more dowry and cash amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs for purchasing a car. To fulfill their evil desire, they started maltreating, taunting and misbehaving with her. When she showed her inability to meet with the demands submitting that her parents were not in a position to pay more dowry or the cash amount, their behaviour towards her became more rude. Ultimately, she was shunted out of the matrimonial home in the month of February-March 2008. In the month of June-July 2008, her parents convened a panchayat, in which, the respondent-husband not only tendered his unconditional apology but also assured that neither he nor his other family members would raise a demand of anything either from her or her parents. Then, she joined the company of the respondent but it did not bring any change in the conduct and behaviour of the respondent and his family members towards her and they reiterated their demands. In the late hours of Nov. 27, 2008, she was mercilessly beaten by the respondent-husband in-connivance with his parents and they tried to end her life. She informed her parents telephonically and requested them to intervene to save her life. In response to it, early in the morning of Nov. 28, 2008, her father accompanied by one Ranjodh Singh came to her in-laws house and when they requested the respondent-husband and his mother to desist from harassing and misbehaving with her, they used defamatory language to them. Seeing the adamant attitude of the appellant-husband and his family members, she was brought by her father to village Jandiali i.e. her parental house. Since then, she is living at the mercy of her parents. Though, she with the assistance of her parents conveyed a number of panchayats to patch-up the matter but the respondent and his family members did not show their intention to rehabilitate her, rather insisted to meet with their demands. The act and conduct of the respondent and his family members also constrained her to lodge a criminal case under Sections 406, 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana on Jan. 18, 2009. Thereafter, she preferred the petition seeking dissolution of her marriage.

(3.) Upon notice of the divorce petition issued by the learned lower Court, the appellant-husband appeared and contested the petition. He filed written statement raising preliminary objections inter alia on the grounds that the petition is not maintainable; that the wife-respondent has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present petition as he was ready and willing and is still ready and willing to join her company; that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts; that the petitioner is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present petition levelling false and frivolous allegations. On merits, the marriage between the parties has been admitted. However, it has been denied that his in-laws spent huge amount of Rs. 9-10 lacs on the marriage or that the demand of more dowry and the cash amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs was raised for purchasing a car or that sufficient dowry was given or that motorcycle was given to him at the time of his marriage. It has also been alleged by him that in-fact, the marriage between the parties was a love marriage and was simple one. No dowry was given at that time. After some time of the marriage, the petitioner pressurised him to live separate from his old aged parents and when he refused to do so, the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner became cruel towards him and his family members and she left the matrimonial home and did not turn up back to the matrimonial home. All other averments made in the petition have been denied alleging the same to be wrong. The respondent, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the petition.