NEELAM MUKHI Vs. MOHINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.3.1999 vide which marriage of the parties was dissolved by the learned trial Court, in a petition filed by the husband-respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). Parties had got married on 18.4.1998, at Chandigarh, according to Hindu Vedic rites. They lived and cohabited together at Bathinda, and out of their wedlock, a male child was born on 29.4.1990, who is now living with the wife-appellant.

(2.) The case of the husband (petitioner before trial Court), as recorded in the trial Court judgmerft, was that from the very beginning, the wife-appellant was disrespectful towards him, his parents, brothers and other family members. She is arrogant, short tempered and had always been creating unnecessary fuss and tension in the family. She never showed any effection for the respondent. She remained away from her matrimonial house, from 9.1.1989 to 15.2.1989, 7.1.990 to 5.2.1990, 28.3.1990 to 14.7.1990, 17.7.1990 to 8.1.1991, 6.2.1991 to 7.3.1991 and from 17.5.1992 onwards till the filing of this petition on 22.4.1996, against his wishes, as she had no intention to live with him at Bhatinda. She had, through-out, been compelling him to shift to Chandigarh. However, in the month of February 1991, she had agreed to come to Bathinda on the condition that he would separate himself, from his parents. In order to save his married life, he did this also, and both of them started living at the house of one (sic) Singh, at Bathinda. She, however, again left his house. And, her father, who had always been against him, ultimately, wrote to the Agricultural and Forest Minister, Punjab on 10.4.1993, for her transfer from Bathinda to Chandigarh, on a fake ground of her ill-health.

(3.) When the appellant deserted the respondent, on 17.5.1992, and his repeated requests made to her for joining him failed, he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, under Section 9 of the Act. She did not appear in those proceedings, and as such, an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in his favour, on 7.1.1994. Even thereafter, she did not join his company and, thus, did not comply with the decree. He, therefore, filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act, against her, on 18.5.1994, which was got transferred by her from Bathinda to Patiala. Later on, she agreed to join the company of the respondent. He, therefore, withdrew the petition on 4.5.1995. But, even thereafter, she did not join his company. On 14.4.1996, he took a panchayat, consisting of Pritam Singh, Janak Raj Kalra, and Sat Narain, etc. to her parental house at Chandigarh and requested her to resume his society but she refused. It was; thereafter, that he filed this second petition for divorce.