INDERJIT SINGH Vs. KULWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-husband challenges judgment and decree dated 12.05.2004, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing his petition filed under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for grant of a decree of divorce.

(2.) The parties were married on 09.02.1991 according to Sikh rites and after the marriage, they cohabited at Village Narur, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala. The parties were blessed with two children Aminder Jeet Singh and Sarabjit Singh, on 11.05.1992 and 26.12.1995, respectively. The appellant was employed in GREF and at the time of filing of the petition, was posted at Leh. The respondent began residing in Village Ghurial, District Jalandhar as she was appointed as a teacher in Village Kalra, District Jalandhar.

(3.) The appellant filed a petition for grant of a decree of divorce by alleging that respondent resided in the matrimonial home for only three days and whenever the appellant came on leave she did not join him as she continued to reside at Village Ghurial. The respondent did not care for the welfare of her in-laws though she was aware that her father-in-law was blind and mother-in-law was suffering from Asthma. The respondent continued to reside in Village Ghurial with her sister Paramjit Kaur on the pretext of her service. The respondent refused to accompany the appellant to his place of posting at the instigation of Randhir Singh, husband of her sister Paramjit Kaur. The respondent made false complaints against the appellant to his officers and sought maintenance by concealing that she is in service. The appellant started paying monthly maintenance Rs. 500.00 per month and got air travel tickets for the respondent but she still refused to accompany the appellant to his place of posting. The respondent withdrew money from FDRs belonging to the appellant. The appellant convened meetings of panchayats from 07.03.2002 to 21.04.2002 and in one such panchayat, held at the parental house of the respondent, she levelled allegations that as the appellant is impotent, she does not want to live with him and wants a divorce. However, on the intervention of relatives and respectables, a compromise was effected and the respondent agreed to live with the appellant in village Narur but stayed upto 20.03.2002 where-after she left for her parental house on the pretext that she has to join service and would return on holidays.