JATINDER SINGH Vs. ROOPLEEN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28. 10. 1991 in Matrimonial Case No. 69/16 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. Admittedly, the parties were married on 2. 12. 1984. The appellant is a business man. His father is a retired Principal of a College. The respondent's father was Prof. and Head of Department of Urology, Govt. Medical College, Patiala. In this wedlock the respondent gave birth to two daughters on 28. 8. 1985 and 20. 9. 1988 respectively. Since 15. 8. 1989 parties are living separately.

(2.) THE appellant-husband has filed the aforementioned matrimonial case for divorce on the ground of cruelty. According to him, the respondent is a lady of short temper and is of quarrelsome nature. He tried to impress upon her to maintain the dignity and decency of the matrimonial home,but she failed to show any improvement in her behaviour. She being the only daughter of her parents, is a pampered child. She wanted him to sever his relations with his parents and other relatives. She also persuaded him to claim his share in the self-acquired property of his father. She used to insult and abuse not only the appellant, but his parents as well. Thereafter his parents have stopped coming to his house. Sometimes the respondent was violent in her behaviour. He requested her parents to persuade her to improve her behaviour, but conversely they blamed him. She went to her parental home and on the intervention of Dr. M. S. Chug and S. Harpal Singh they were united after 8 months of separation. The respondent also asked him to transfer all his movable and immovable properties in her name so that if anything happens to him during his business tours she may not be subjected to any inconvenience thereafter.

(3.) THE respondent denied all the allegations of alleged cruelty. According to her, at the time of marriage valuable gifts and articles were given in dowry, but still the appellant and his parents were not satisfied. The appellant was running a flourishing business. He was owning two cars and two telephone connections. She never abused or quarrelled with him or his relations. Conversely she was mal-treated by him. He used to beat her at the instigation of his parents. She was always taunted by them for bringing less dowry. They wanted money to purchase a new car. She intimated her parents about their demand. After the delivery of the second daughter she was totally neglected by the appellant for 8 months. On 10. 6. 1989 his mother insisted that she should drink the milk offered by her which was not good for health. She told the appellant about that incident, but he did nothing. On 17. 5. 1988 when she was carrying 5 months' pregnancy the appellant beat her. After reconciliation she came back to her matrimonial home on 11. 5. 1989. But despite assurance of good behaviour the appellant's behaviour towards her was the same. She never asked him to transfer his assets in her name or to get his share in the property owned by his father.