ARVINDER KAUR Vs. HARJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is wife's appeal against the judgment and decree of divorce passed by the District Judge, Ambala, on a petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(l)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act').

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 5-10-1997 at Patiala. They lived together as husband and wife and cohabited as such at Ambala. However, no child was born out of the wedlock. The wife was employed as a Clerk in Punjabi University, Patiala, even prior to the marriage. After marriage, she had been commuting daily from Ambala to Patiala and back. Everything remained normal between the parties, Meanwhile, father of the respondent-husband died on 3-11-1997. According to the husband, the wife started misbehaving with him and his mother after the death of his father. She would stay at Patiala even without consent or intimation to the husband. On enquiry, she would not disclose anything and rather threatened the family members of the husband. She would often say that she was forced by her parents to rnarry the respondent, otherwise she was not inclined to marry him. She did not want to live with the husband at Ambala and insisted that he should shift to Patiala. According to the husband, the appellant-wife left matrimonial home after quarrelling with him on 26-6-1998. The husband went to Patiala along with one of his friends on 30-6-1998 to bring her back, but she refused to return to matrimonial home and insulted the husband and threatened him in the presence of his friend, who had accompanied him to the Punjabi University, Patiala. After a lot of persuasion by the family members and relatives of the husband, she came back to matrimonial home on 5-10-1998 and stayed there for a few days, but there was no improvement in her behaviour. She had always been disrespectful and arrogant towards the husband and his mother. She would often say that if the husband interfered in her independent life, she would break her head and involve the husband and his family members in a false criminal case. When the husband clearly told the wife that it was not possible for him to live separately from his old mother and to shift to Patiala, she again left the matrimonial home on 28-2-1999 without the consent of the husband. Accordingly, the husband reported the matter to the police about the conduct of the appellant-wife and a Daily Diary Report (Exhibit PA) was recorded in the Police Post, Model Town, Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala. Thereafter, the husband again brought her back to matrimonial home on 5-12-1999 after 'making great efforts. However, there was no improvement in her behaviour towards the husband and his family members and she continued insisting on her demand that husband should live separately from his mother and settle at Patiala. On the night of 26-8-2000, when the husband was suffering from fever, the appellant-wife gave beatings to the husband with shoes in the presence of his younger brother and snatched the gold chain and thereafter, she left the matrimonial home on 27-8-2000. The mother of the husband was away to Nagde where her another son was living, for treatment. The appellant-wife took away all her jewellery, costly clothes and articles of dowry and thereafter she never came back to matrimonial home and since then she is living at Patiala. The husband filed the petition for divorce on 3-12-2002 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It was pleaded that the wife had deserted the husband-petitioner for a continuous period of more than two years immediately before presentation of the petition without any reasonable cause and against the wishes of the petitioner and had committed numerous acts of cruelty; accordingly, the petitioner-husband had suffered mental torture.

(3.) The pleadings of the husband-petitioner were controverted by the wife. In her written statement, she admitted the factum of her marriage and her employment at Punjabi University, Patiala. However, she categorically pleaded that she had been commuting everyday from Ambala to Patiala to attend her duties. She denied that she had started misbehaving with the husband and his family members after 1 Viz months of their marriage. However, she admitted that everything was normal till the death of father of the husband, but after his death the petitioner, his mother and brother started misbehaving with her and they would pick up quarrel over trifle matters. She was asked either to leave the job or to give her entire salary to petitioner's mother. The wife agreed to give her entire salary to her mother-in-law, but still they were not happy. Whenever she would come home, a bit late from Patiala, she had to bear the wrath of her mother-in-law as well as brother-in-law. She denied that she was not willing to live at Ambala with her husband. She further denied that she had ever stayed at Patiala without intimation to her husband. The husband has levelled defamatory allegations against her. It was further stated by the wife that she had to undergo surgery at Patia'a for stone in her kidney and spent a huge amount on the same. However, neither the husband nor any of his family members visited to enquire about her health. She denied having left matrimonial home on 26-6-1998, rather she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home after beatings given by the husband and his mother. She also denied having insulted the petitioner-husband when he visited her at Punjabi University, Patiala. According to her, the husband used filthy language in her office in the presence of her colleagues and created an embarrassing situation for her. The wife categorically pleaded that she was always ready and willing to live with her husband in the matrimonial home at Ambala itself. However, the husband did not allow her to join the matrimonial home and willfully neglected her without any reasonable and sufficient cause. It was further pleaded that she had always made efforts through her relatives to sort out the matrimonial differences. Many a times, she tried to join the matrimonial home after 27-8-2000 when she was forced to leave the matrimonial home by the husband. She never intended to settle at Patiala. She lost both her parents and, therefore, there was no question of settling at Patiala as there was no one to look back and to settle at Patlala.