SARABJIT SINGH Vs. LOURDES SERRATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ-III), Ferozepur, whereby, the petition of the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties had been dismissed.

(2.) The marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Sikh rites at Brar Palace, Mudki, District Ferozepur on 08.5.2000. The appellant alleged that after marriage, the parties lived together at Village Mudki, District Ferozepur only for a few days. They cohabited with each other as husband and wife. They had no issue from the marriage. Before the marriage, the respondent was living at California. At the time of marriage, the respondent came with her family in the house of Sh. Hari Singh Gill at Moga. The marriage was solemnized with the consent of parents of both the parties. It is alleged that the attitude of the respondent towards the appellant was not normal from the very first night of the marriage. She was not happy with the marriage and was openly saying that she was not willing for the marriage and she had not consented for the same. After 20 days of the marriage, the respondent went to California. She declared that she would not come back to India in future; besides, she would not call the appellant to California. Therefore, it is alleged that the respondent had continuously deserted the appellant for a period of two years. The respondent intentionally neglected the appellant. She was still not ready and willing to call the appellant to California or come back to India. Despite efforts made for patching up the matter, these remained unsuccessful.

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge (ADJ-III), Ferozepur after considering the evidence and material on record held that though the marriage was solemnized on 08.5.2000, however, the petition for divorce was filed on 07.3.2012. No member of the family of the appellant had been examined. The appellant had only examined Sukhmander Singh, who, it was claimed had attended the marriage. It was held that there was no explanation given by the appellant for remaining silent for a period of 12 years.