CHHINDER KAUR Vs. BINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife against the judgment and decree dated 13.5.2013 passed by the trial court whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, "the Act") filed by respondent No. 1-husband for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, was allowed. The facts, in brief, relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as available on the record may be noticed. Marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized 27 years ago by way of Anand Karaj ceremony at Dharamgarh. The appellant started living in the matrimonial home after seven years of marriage by way of Muklawa ceremony. At the time of marriage, 5 tolas of gold ornaments were given to the appellant but she sold that gold. Out of the said wedlock, two children, namely, Manpreet Kaur (daughter) and Jagdeep Singh (son) were born who are living with respondent No. 1. The appellant developed illicit relations with 3-4 persons and she used to remain outside the matrimonial house for many days. Respondent No. 1 tried to explain to her to amend her behaviour for the future of the children and family but she did not improve. On 31.8.2010 at about 11.45 PM, the daughter of respondent No. 1 who was sleeping woke up from the sleep as she heard some noise in the kitchen. When respondent No. 1 along with his daughter and other family members went in the kitchen, they found the appellant and respondent No. 2 in compromising position. Upon this, respondent No. 1 gave slaps to respondent No. 2 who ran away from his house. Respondent No. 1 requested the appellant not to repeat these acts as children have grown up but she did not respond and left the matrimonial home in the morning. Respondent No. 1 convened a panchayat where he requested the appellant to come back to his house by breaking relationship with respondent No. 2 but she refused and started making false allegations of demand of dowry. She also threatened respondent No. 1 to file false complaint against him and his family members. 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 appellant and respondent No. 2 by filing separate written statements. Besides raising various preliminary objections, it was pleaded by the appellant in her written statement that respondent No. 1 became arrogant and started demanding more dowry from the appellant. The sisters and mother-in-law of the appellant along with other family members started harassing and torturing the appellant. Respondent No. 1 had kept the children forcibly with him. After few days of the marriage, respondent No. 1 and his family members demanded Rs. 50,000/-. They turned the appellant out of her matrimonial house. The appellant and her parents convened a panchayat and requested respondent No. 1 and his family members to keep her in the matrimonial home but they did not agree. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. In his written statement, respondent No. 2 pleaded that he is mason by profession and respondent No. 1 got his services for construction of kitchen flooring and bathroom etc. He worked there for 38 days on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 400/- per day and respondent No. 1 had paid only Rs. 2000/- and he had to recover the remaining amount Rs. 13000/- from respondent No. 1. He used to demand the said amount from the appellant and respondent No. 1 and both of them after conniving with each other levelled false allegations of adultery against him. There is considerable difference in the age of the appellant and respondent No. 2. The appellant was a lady of more than 42 years whereas respondent. No. 2 was only 32 years old. Respondent No. 2 is married and having his own family and children. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same qua him was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following is-sues:-

(2.) In support of his case, respondent No. 1 examined himself as AW1 and his daughter Manpreet Kaur as AW2. On the other hand, the appellant examined herself as RW1, Lal Singh as RW2 and Krishan Kumar, Ex-Panch as RW3.

(3.) Issue No. 1 was decided against respondent No. 1 being not pressed. The trial court on appreciation of evidence led by the parties, decided issue No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 holding that the appellant was living in adultery with respondent No. 2. Issue No. 3 was decided against the appellant being not pressed. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 13.5.2013 allowed the divorce petition and dissolved the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1 by a decree of divorce. Hence, the present appeal by the wife.