VEERPAL KAUR Vs. BALVINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the wife against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda whereby the petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act") for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, was allowed.

(2.) PUT shortly, the facts of the case as narrated therein may be noticed. Respondent No.1 filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act, inter alia, pleading that the marriage between him and the appellant was solemnized on 29.6.1997 by way of Anand Karaj ceremonies at village Malee Kan, District Sirsa. The parties lived together as husband and wife and cohabited as such at village Rai Ke Khurd, District Bathinda. Out of the said wedlock, a son, namely, Harinder Pal was born on 10.12.1998. The appellant was a quarrelsome lady and from the beginning of the marriage, she used to pick quarrel with respondent No.1 and his family members. She also used to treat respondent No.1 and his family members with utter dis -respect and disregard. She used to leave the matrimonial house time and again without the knowledge and consent of respondent No.1 and all the times, respondent No.1 used to bring her back to his house with a request to mend her ways. The appellant developed illicit relations with respondent No.2 and started living in adultery with him. The appellant used to visit the house of respondent No.2 and used to spend time with him for hours together and respondent No.2 also used to visit the house of respondent No.1 in his absence. Upon coming to know the said fact in the year 2009, respondent No.1 asked the appellant to mend her ways but she said that she had no concern with respondent No.2 and continued to meet him in a secret manner. Respondent No.1 caught the appellant with respondent No.2 in compromising position and upon this, he convened a panchayat. In the said panchayat, the appellant assured respondent No.1 to mend her ways but she continued her illicit relations with respondent No.2. On 12.5.2012, respondent No.1 again convened a Panchayat and in the presence of the Panchayat, the appellant stated that she could not live without respondent No.2 upon which, it was decided that the marriage between the appellant and respondent No.1 be got dissolved by mutual consent. However, the appellant did not file joint petition under Section 13 -B of the Act rather she moved an application before the Women Cell, Sirsa levelling false allegations regarding demand of motor cycle by respondent No.1. According to respondent No.1, the above said acts of the appellant amounted to cruelty and there was no chance of the appellant to live with him as she was living in adultery with respondent No.2. Upon notice, the appellant as well as respondent No.2 filed their separate written statements. The appellant besides raising various preliminary objections in the written statement pleaded that respondent No.1 and his family members were greedy persons and from the very beginning of the marriage, they were not satisfied with the dowry given by her parents. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 and his family members in order to fulfil their lust for more dowry, used to give merciless beatings to her and used to throw her out of the matrimonial house. It was denied that the appellant had illicit relations with respondent No.2 or that she used to spend time with respondent No.2. It was pleaded that respondent No.2 used to save her from the clutches of respondent No.1 and due to that reason, respondent No.1 had also started keeping a grudge against respondent No.2. The other averments made in the petition were denied. Respondent No.2 also raised various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the allegations levelled against him were totally false, baseless, concocted and defamatory in nature. According to respondent No.2, his house was situated near the house of respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 used to pick up quarrel with the appellant time and again without any reasonable cause and excuse and used to give her merciless beatings. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues: -

(3.) THE appellant in support of her case examined Harbhajan Singh as RW1, Parminder Singh as RW2, herself as RW3 and Palwinder Singh -respondent No.2 as RW4 whereas respondent No.1 besides examining himself as PW1 also examined Kehar Singh as PW2, Ram Kishan as PW3, Harinder Pal as PW4 and Gurmeet Singh as PW5. He also tendered enquiry report Ex.PX in evidence.