KULWINDER KAUR Vs. TARANJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has been heard. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Rupnagar, on 01.04.2014, whereby the petition filed by the respondent -husband for dissolution of marriage between the parties was allowed. The wife came up in appeal challenging the decree on different grounds.

(2.) THE case of the respondent -husband was that the marriage between the parties was solemnized at village Katala, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, on 22.02.2000 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. They lived together as husband and wife at village Dholran, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar. The marriage was a simple affair and no dowry was given by the parents of the appellant. Soon after the marriage, the behaviour of the appellant -wife became cruel towards the respondent and his mother and she often abused them. She used to leave the matrimonial home at regular intervals without any information to the respondent or his mother. The appellant also quarreled on petty matters with them and also beat her mother -in -law in the absence of her husband. On 24.08.2010, she left the matrimonial home stating that she was going to the house of her parents for 'Raksha Bandhan', which fell on 26.08.2010. She took the gold ornaments with her and also the younger daughter - Jashanpreet Kaur. She did not return thereafter. The elder daughter -Harman Kaur, however, at that time, remained with the respondent. At the time of filing the petition both the daughters were with the respondent

(3.) THE appellant -wife defended the petition on the ground that the respondent -husband had not come with clean hands and that all the allegations against her were false. She denied that she treated her husband and/or mother -in -law with cruelty and that she used to leave the matrimonial home without their permission. She stated that She visited her parents' house after a gap of six months. Rather it was the respondent and his mother, who maltreated her for not giving birth to a male child. The respondent and his family wanted that the former should remarry so that a male child could be born to him. She was always ready and willing to live in the matrimonial home. It was denied that any panchayat was taken to the house of her parents by the respondent to bring her back.