GURDEEP SINGH Vs. AMARJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This an appeal by the husband against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sirsa dismissing the petition under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') for grant of decree of divorce. Briefly, the facts are that the marriage between the parties took place on 11th February 1993 at village Ghukanwali and from the said wedlock, no child was born to them. It is the case of the husband that on the next day of marriage, the wife went to her parental home and after about a week, she returned to her matrimonial home. After few days of the marriage, the wife was found roaming in the house at mid-night without any cause. She was made to lie on the bed with the help of the mother of the appellant. However, she did not speak to anybody for 4/5 days. After a week, the husband found the wife tearing the clothes of the husband and other family members. The wife gave blows to everybody including the husband who tried to stop her from tearing the clothes. The mother of the husband brought the aforesaid episode to the notice of Smt. Malkiat Kaur and her husband Jagdev Singh and they were invited at the home of the husband. On finding her destroying the clothes, Malkiat Kaur apprised the husband and his parents that she suffered from mental disorder. On the next day, the husband with his uncles and other relatives took the wife to her parental home. According to husband, this mental disorder position is so obvious that even the brother of the wife conceded. On the same day, it came to the notice that the wife is elder than the husband, meaning thereby that the wife is 32 years of age and husband is 24 years of age. With the intervention of the parents and relatives, the matter was patched up and the divorce petition filed by the husband was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 25.4.1994. The company of the wife remained only for a period of one month after the withdrawal of the divorce petition. Her lack of cooperation in establishing cohabitation was there. On a couple of occasions, she threatened to commit suicide. After December 1994, the wife never returned to husband to join him in the matrimonial home. The wife initiated criminal proceedings against the husband and family members. Under these circumstances, the husband wanted a decree of divorce under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act.

(2.) Upon notice, the wife refuted the allegations made in the petition. However, the wife did not dispute the factum of marriage. She also did not dispute that no child was born from the said wedlock. The husband harassed her for bringing less dowry. Even the claim of the husband being younger is also denied. There is no denial that the earlier divorce petition filed by the husband on the similar grounds was withdrawn on 25.4.1994, inasmuch as, the matter had been compromised and the husband had given undertaking that he would never raise any demand of dowry and would not maltreat her. It is conceded that after the compromise, the wife resided with the husband together. However, the behavior of the husband and his family members was cruel towards her.

(3.) On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that after getting the earlier divorce petition withdrawn on 25.04.1994, the husband and wife resided together for sometime with their free consent, the plea taken for grant of divorce under Section 12 of the Act is not tenable. It also came to the conclusion that the respondent-wife never treated the husband with such degree of cruelty which amounts to matrimonial offence. Accordingly, the petition filed by the husband was dismissed.