KHUSDEV KAUR Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is wife's appeal against the judgment dated 5.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby a decree of divorce under Sec. 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') has been passed against her.

(2.) The parties were married on 1.11.1991 according to Sikh rites at Patiala. They cohabited together as husband and wife and a son named Charankamal Singh was born out of the wedlock. As per the averments made by Mohinder Singh, husband in his petition for divorce, the appellant-wife and her parents had been pressurising him to settle at Patiala after selling his house at Samana. Though after the marriage the wife had been living with him at Samana, but she used to attend her office at Patiala. The wife also used to give her entire salary to her parents and brothers. After the marriage, she never performed the duties of a wife and did not serve the husband and his family members. She had been quarrelling with her husband, her brother-in-law Gurmail Singh and his wife Baljit Kaur and ultimately withdrew from the society of the husband on 22.2.1993 without any reasonable cause and since then she has been living with her parents at Patiala. The wife, therefore, failed to discharge her matrimonial obligations. The husband along with his other relatives and family members approached the wife and her parents to bring the wife back to the matrimonial home, but she refused to join him.

(3.) The petition for divorce was contested by the wife stating that husband had filed a petition under Sec. 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights, after the wife had filed a petition under Sec. 125 Crimial P.C. However, the said petition was withdrawn by him on 27.7.1995. The wife averred that she is working as a clerk in PWD Department at Patiala and being a handicapped person, cannot easily travel by bus from Samana to Patiala. According to her, it was settled between the parties at the time of marriage, that they would reside at Patiala. However, the husband did not fulfill his compromise and under such circumstances, the wife had to take shelter in the house of her parents. It was further pleaded by the wife that she was being harassed by the elder brother of the husband and his wife and she was playing in their hands. It was categorically pleaded by the wife that she was ready to live with the husband at Patiala as agreed between them before marriage.