LEMHMBER SINGH Vs. KULDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Sikh religious rites and ceremonies at Village Kala Sanghian on 02.12.2001. After marriage, the parties resided together as husband and wife at Village Basheshrepur Post Office Lambra District Jalandhar. They had a son, namely, Sukhraj Singh, who was born on 23.11.2002. At present, the son is residing with the appellant-husband. On account of matrimonial disputes between the parties, the respondent-wife on 16.12.2010 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' - for short) seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. Her petition was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2012. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant-husband has filed the present appeal. According to the respondent-wife, the appellant had come from USA before the marriage and as per the demand from the side of the appellant, the father of the respondent solemnised the marriage with great pomp and show. An amount of Rs. 8 lacs, it is stated was spent in the marriage. Various dowry articles including gold ornaments were given. The appellant and his family members were however dissatisfied with the same. They taunted the respondent by proclaiming that no big item like a luxury car had been given, besides, their image had been lowered in the eyes of their brotherhood. The family members of the appellant started instigating the appellant to leave the respondent and they would perform his second marriage. It is alleged that the appellant ill-treated the respondent and even slapped her on many occasions. Her life became a hell. The appellant also demanded Rs. 2.00 lacs from her on the pretext that if she wanted to join the company of the appellant in USA, she should bring the said amount. Her father arranged the amount in the year 2006, which he gave to the appellant. The respondent then left India on 25.05.2007 to join the company of the appellant. In the USA it is alleged that the life of the respondent became from bad to worse. The appellant consumed heavy drinks, besides, used vulgar and indecent language against her. He used to treat the respondent like a servant and even used to talk to other ladies in her presence. When this was objected, the appellant gave her a merciless beating in January, 2008. She was told that in case she wanted to live with him, she would have to bear all this. It is also alleged that the appellant stated that he has relations with other foreigners and she had no right to raise objection. The appellant is alleged to have slapped the respondent and turned her out from the matrimonial home. She stayed with her friends for 3-4 days and informed this fact to her in-laws but no one heard her. Then the respondent shifted to a rented accommodation in California and she resided there all alone. The appellant kept her minor son with him. The respondent then in October, 2009 came to know that the appellant was to come to India. She also came to India and went to the house of her in-laws to resolve the dispute but she was not allowed to enter the matrimonial home. She was threatened with dire consequences. It is alleged that abusive and indecent language was hurled at her. She returned to her parental home and narrated the entire story. Panchayat was convened on 02.11.2009 but due to the adamant behavior of the appellant, no fruitful results came out. Rather the appellant proclaimed that he would not keep the respondent as his wife. The appellant then went back to USA and did not allow the respondent to live with him. His parents did not allow her to stay in her in-laws house and said that their son was not interested in keeping her any more. In this way, it is alleged that the appellant treated her with cruelty and deserted her without any reasonable cause.

(2.) Upon notice, the appellant filed written statement. It is alleged therein that the respondent was misusing the process of law. The respondent cannot take benefit of her own wrongs besides she has been guilty of ill-treating and harassing the appellant with mental and physical cruelty. The respondent during the subsistence of the marriage, it is alleged that without his knowledge had performed second marriage with Sarabjit Singh son of Gurdial Singh. On merits, the marriage between the parties and birth of the son is admitted. The other allegations as made have been denied. It is stated by the appellant that the respondent got married for the second time with Sarabjit Singh and then went back to America with the appellant and she disclosed the said fact to him. She started pressurising him to divorce her and informed him that she wanted to call Sarabjit Singh to America and in case he failed to give her divorce, then she would go to Sarabjit Singh in India. The appellant intimated the said fact to his mother-in-law Jasbir Kaur and father-in-law who enquired about the marriage of the respondent with Sarabjit Singh. This fact was found to be true. The photographs and movie of the second marriage also came in the hands of the mother of the respondent as well as the father of the appellant. It is stated that the respondent without informing the appellant came to India on 08.12.2010 and went to the house of Sarabjit Singh and started residing with him as his wife. While returning, she took all the jewellery, cash and costly items which belong to the appellant. The appellant contacted the respondent on phone and requested her to come back and she flatly refused and reiterated the demand for divorce. When the mother and father of the respondent and other relatives came to know about this fact, all of them requested her to come back but the respondent did not care and continued to reside with Sarabjit Singh. The father of the appellant approached the respondent and requested her to go to America but she insulted and humiliated him. He prayed for dismissal of the case.

(3.) The learned trial Court in its impugned order has noticed that during the course of proceedings, the appellant was directed to appear in the Court and many opportunities were granted for reconciliation but he did not come. In terms of the provisions of Order 10 Rule 4 Clause 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, his defence was struck off. The appellant was debarred from leading evidence but he was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent.