MANDEEP KAUR Vs. LAKHWINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife against the judgment and decree dated 1.8.2007 passed by the trial court whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, "the Act") filed by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage has been allowed. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as available on the record may be noticed. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.10.1991 at Mohalla Prithvi Nagar, Kishanpura, Jalandhar City as per Sikh religious rites. As per averments made in the petition field by the respondent husband in the petition under Section 13 of the Act are that after the marriage, the appellant and respondent lived and cohabited together as husband and wife at Jalandhar. Out of the wedlock, two children namely Malkit Kaur and Manpreet Singh were born and they are presently residing with the respondent. After about one year of the marriage, the respondent started residing separate from his old parents under the compelling circumstances as the appellant was not ready and willing to reside with the parents of the respondent. The respondent was working abroad and used to come only for few months every year due to nature of his job. She used to quarrel on petty matters in the family and always insisted the respondent to live separate from his parents. She also levelled allegation against his father that he tried to outrage her modesty. The respondent even started living separate from his parents. She also levelled allegation against the brother of the respondent that he molested her. She was in illicit relation with one Goldy who used to come to the house of the respondent in his absence and sometimes stayed for night also. The respondent tried his level best to ask the appellant to mend her ways but in vain. When the respondent came on leave from Dubai on 17.6.2004, he was again complained of the unsocial activities of the appellant by the neighbours. Upon notice, the appellant appeared and filed written statement controverting the averments made in the petition. The trial court after examining the entire evidence on record allowed the petition filed by the respondent husband vide impugned judgment and decree dated 1.8.2007. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant-wife.

(2.) The trial court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:-

(3.) In support of his case, the respondent-husband reiterated the averments made in the petition under Section 13 of the Act. He deposed that immediately after the solemnization of the marriage, the appellant started creating trouble in the family by picking up quarrel on petty matters. She levelled false allegations against his father and brother regarding outraging her modesty. In his absence, she developed illicit relations with one Goldy. The respondent even saw Goldy while jumping from his house. On 23.6.2004, a news was published in the Punjab Kesri containing the news that the appellant had eloped with her paramour. DDR No. 18 dated 7.7.2004 was also registered in the police station as Ex. P. 1. She even made statement in the police statement that she was having extra marital relations with the said Goldy. On the other hand, the appellant appeared as RW 1 and produced one witness Harsh Sehgal as RW2 in support of her case. The trial court after examining the entire evidence allowed the petition under section 13 of the Act by the respondent husband and granted decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage to him vide judgment and decree dated 1.8.2007.