ARVIND KUNDAN SINGH Vs. AVTAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and .decree dated 15.6.1992 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar in H.M. Case No. 45 of 1991.

(2.) UNCONTROVERTED facts are that the parties are Hindus and were united in wedlock on 4.3.1987. In this wedlock the respondent gave birth to a son on 20.1.1988. The petitioner -appellant is a Doctor. The respondent is in service of Punjab National Bank, G.T. Road, Phagwara.

(3.) THE respondent -wife in her reply averred that the appellant married her only because she was a working woman. After marriage she took leave and stayed with him in his village Chak Kalan. Thereafter she came to her parental house where she is living since then. Her son was born at Phagwara. The petitioner - appellant used to come to her at Phagwara. She also used to go to her matrimonial home during vacations. It is denied that it was settled before marriage that she would leave the job. According to her during that period the petitioner -appellant was suspended. He was not doing any job. Thereafter, he wanted to marry a working girl. She and her parents never agreed that she would leave the job after marriage. The petitioner -appellant is a habitual drunkard and spend -thrift. Whenever he asked for money, she accepted to his demand. But after the birth of the son, she refused to give him money any more. The petitioner -appellant never came to her house to ask her to leave the job. The petitioner -appellant came to her parental home, threatened her parents and abused them which ended in an altercation. The police had to be called. The petitioner -appellant begged pardon before the police and then he was let off. It is denied that she has deserted the petitioner -appellant. She is always ready and willing to live with the petitioner - appellant as they used to live earlier that is during holidays. She never refused cohabitation with the petitioner -appellant. Even after the receipt of notice, she and her parents approached the petitioner -appellant, but he was adamant that either his demand for money should be satisfied or marriage should be broken. She cannot leave the job because that is the only source of earning to maintain her and her son. She never did any act of cruelty towards the petitioner -appellant.