GURJINDER KAUR Vs. PRITPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter mentioned as the 'Act') seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The marriage between the parties was solemnized in April, 1996, according to Sikh rites at village Bahona. A male child, Manpreet Singh, was born out of the wedlock in 1997, who was living with respondent No. 1-husband. In 2006, respondent No. 1 had gone to Kuwait to earn livelihood and returned in September, 2008. Again, he went in November, 2008, and came back in April, 2010 and then he went in August, 2011, and returned in September, 2012. The parties had a joint savings bank account in the State Bank of India at Kotkapura in which respondent No. 1 used to send money from Kuwait. However, when he returned in April, 2010, and wanted to withdraw some amount from the joint account, he found that the balance was only Rs.10,000/-. On enquiry, it was revealed that all the amount had been withdrawn by the appellant. Respondent No. 1 questioned the appellant-wife, but she could not give any satisfactory reply. Respondent No. 1 made further enquiries and found from the residents of village Matta, village of the appellant, that she was maintaining illicit relations with respondent No. 2-Sukhchain Singh (who was also respondent No. 2 in the petition for divorce). This fact was also established from the call details relating to the mobile phone of Sukhchain Singh from which numerous calls were made to the landline number of the house of respondent No. 1. A panchayat was convened where the appellant admitted that she had relations with respondent No. 2 and that she had also withdrawn money from the joint account that she had with her husband, as mentioned above. She stated that she would not repeat the mistake in future, but she did not desist and left the matrimonial house in May, 2010, in the absence of respondent No. 1.

(2.) In July, 2010, the appellant made a complaint in Police Station Jaitu, which was found to be false and no action was taken by the police. However, it caused mental cruelty to the husband and his family. She withdrew herself from the company of respondent No. 1 without reasonable cause.

(3.) The appellant, who was respondent No. 1 in the petition in the trial Court, contested the petition on the ground that the allegations of cruelty and desertion made against her were false. Regarding the money, she admitted that she had made the withdrawals but tried to explain by saying that the money was being sent by other known persons also in that account and she had withdrawn the same and handed over the same to the families of those persons. Regarding allegations of adultery, there was categorical denial. Her relationship with respondent No. 2 was denied and so was the holding of panchayat and admission of guilt. Insofar as the phone calls were concerned, the appellant pleaded that her son Manpreet Singh was to take middle class examinations at Kotkapura and respondent No. 1 had made a call from Kuwait to respondent No. 2 asking the latter to take care of the child during the examination time and the telephone calls were made by respondent No. 2 in that regard, which were mostly attended by the father-in-law of the appellant or by the child Manpreet Singh himself.