AMANDEEP KAUR Vs. AVTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the wife against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby the petition filed by husband-respondent No.1 under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree divorce, was allowed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The marriage between the appellant and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 26.9.2003 at village Narike, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur according to Anand Karaj ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, two daughters, namely, Khuspreet Kaur and Tarasveer Kaur were born. Khushpreet Kaur is in the custody of the appellant whereas Tarasveer Kaur is in custody of respondent No.1. As per the averments in the petition, after the solemnization of the marriage, the appellant had voluntarily sexual intercourse with respondent No.2 who is neighbourer of respondent No.1 at village Palasaur. The appellant and respondent No.2 have a joint account in Punjab National Bank, Dhuri. The appellant had also applied for her passport wherein she had written the spouse's name as Amandeep Sharma (respondent No.2) and also mentioned his mobile number. Respondent No.1 also saw the appellant and respondent No.2 giving objectionable signals to each other from the open kitchen to the roof of chaubara while respondent No.2 was standing on the roof of chaubara and the appellant was standing in the open kitchen and both of them have illicit relations. On 25.12.2011, respondent No.1 suddenly came to his house at about 12 noon and found his house locked from inside. On knocking the door, the same was opened by the appellant and respondent No.2 after a long time and both of them were not in their proper dresses and were feeling nervous. Respondent No.2 pushed respondent No.1 and ran away. Upon enquiry, the appellant could not give proper reply to respondent No.1. This confirmed the doubt of respondent No.1 that the appellant after the solemnization of marriage had sexual intercourse with respondent No.2, her paramour. The appellant never served meals to respondent No.1. She neither liked his parents nor served a glass of water to them. Thus, the appellant treated respondent No.1 with cruelty. On 26.12.2011, the appellant left the house of respondent No.1 along with minor daughter Khuspreet Kaur and gold articles etc. Respondent No.1 along with respectable and relatives went to the house of the appellant on 27.12.2011 where her parents and brother stated that they already knew about the relations of the appellant with respondent No.2 and they had no objection about their relations. They also stated that the appellant was living with respondent No.2 and she had applied passport disclosing that the name of her spouse was Amandeep Sharma (respondent No.2). Then respondent No.1 came to know that the appellant and respondent No.2 and their parents were in connivance with each other and this fact also caused mental cruelty to him. Accordingly, respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The said petition was resisted by the respondents by filing their separate written statements. Besides controverting the averments made in the petition, it was pleaded by the appellant that her parents had spent huge amount on their marriage but respondent No.1 and his family members were not happy with the dowry articles. They demanded a car from the appellant and on her refusal, she was harassed and maltreated by respondent No.1 and his family members. She also filed a complaint before the SSP, Sangrur regarding demand of dowry against respondent No.1 and his family members which was entrusted to SHO, Amargarh but no action was taken therein. The other averments made in the petition were also denied. Respondent No.2 in his written statement pleaded that the appellant and respondent No.1 were in connivance with each other to falsely implicate him because the relations of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 were not cordial and both the families were quarrelling with each other on trifling issues. The other averments made in the petition were denied by respondent No.2 and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the court below framed the following issues:-

(3.) In support of his case, respondent No.1 besides examining himself as PW6, examined Jai Bir Singh Bhandari, LDC, Passport Office, Chandigarh as PW1, Harwinder Singh Clerk, Punjab National Bank, Dhuri as PW2, HC Manjit Singh as PW3, Bhagwant Singh, Panch as PW4 and Amrik Singh as PW5. On the other hand, the appellant in support of her case examined Karnail Singh as RW1, Nirmal Singh as RW2 and himself as RW3.