GURMOHINDER PAL SINGH Vs. KAMAL MOHINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.9.2004, dismissing his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 30.5.1993 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at village Kaimbwala near Chandigarh. The marriage was simple marriage in which no dowry articles were given and the same was attended only by few relatives and friends from both sides. The appellant-husband was working in Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Assam, whereas, the respondent-wife was employed at Palampur. It has been pleaded by the appellant- husband that it was made clear to the respondent-wife that after marriage she would have to leave the job permanently. After the marriage, the respondent-wife did not behave properly and disclosed to the appellant-husband that she had enjoyed independent life and has been brought up in a different environment and, therefore, it is not possible for her to adjust in the family circumstances of the appellanthusband and she preferred to live separately. The appellanthusband stated that he remained silent because he did not want to hurt his parents by disclosing these facts in the very inception of the marriage. After spending some time at Mohali, the couple went to Assam and stayed over there for about 1 1/2 month. The respondentwife came back to Delhi at her parental house. The appellanthusband went to Delhi to bring her back, but the respondent-wife flatly refused to accompany him and, thereafter, she left for Palampur to join her duties. The appellant-husband also visited Palampur and stayed with the respondent-wife for some time. In the year 1996, the appellant-husband was transferred to Bombay and the respondent-wife joined him and stayed there for few months. The respondent-wife did not want to conceive and always pressurised the appellant-husband for going back to her place of working. She did not even inform the demise of her mother and when the appellant-husband came to know about this, he along with his mother attended the bhog ceremony at Delhi, but the respondent-wife completely ignored them and did not pay any heed and even did not behave properly. She mis-behaved with the appellant-husband in the presence of other relatives. It has also been submitted by the appellant-husband that they resided in Gujarat also for a short period of 1 1/2 month and, thereafter, the respondent-wife came back to Palampur on 9.6.2000 and virtually broke all the matrimonial ties with the appellant-husband without any rhyme or reason. Process of reconciliation did not pay any dividend and virtually the respondentwife deserted the appellant-husband w.e.f. 9.6.2000 without reasonable excuse. With this background, the appellant-husband has come, firstly by way of petition under Section 13 of the Act before the learned trial Court and now in appeal after dismissal of the same by the learned trial Court.

(3.) The claim of the appellant-husband has been contested by the respondent-wife on numerous counts. It has been claimed by her that the appellant-husband was in knowledge that her post is non-transferable. She remained on leave from November 1992 to April 1994 and stayed with the appellant-husband and, thereafter also she remained on leave from June 1997 to 19.3.1999 and remained in his company at different places of his posting. The university authorities got annoyed with her on account of her taking excessive leaves and she was accordingly, chargesheeted and was ultimately dismissed from service. Thereafter, she filed representation against the order of her dismissal dated 2.12.2000 and her representation was accepted and she was again taken back in service in June 2003. Accordingly, the respondent-wife informed the appellant-husband about the development, but he did not help her and she had to bear all the vagaries of service life and other proceedings all alone. The alleged desertion by her w.e.f. 9.6.2000 is denied. The respondent-wife has submitted that she never preferred to live separately from the family members of the appellanthusband. In fact, the mother of the husband and two un-married sisters never wanted her to stay with the husband at his place of posting and in the year 1993 she alone went to Assam and stayed with the husband. The instances of misbehaviour on the bhog ceremony of her mother is also denied and the respondent-wife showed her willingness and readiness to save the matrimonial life and also tried to meet the appellant-husband separately out of the court proceedings but he refused to meet her.