BALJINDER KAUR Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - CM-13476-CII of 2006 This is an application under Order 41, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 151 Code of Civil Procedure for permission to adduce additional evidence. Perusal of this application shows that the appellant intends to adduce additional evidence. The particulars of additional evidence have not been given inasmuch as that the particulars viz. names of the witnesses to be examined are not forthcoming. The application is vague and does not contain legal requirements of law. Applicant being American citizen cannot be absolved of legal requirement of law. Ignorance of law cannot be allowed to be a shield to claim production of additional evidence in appeal. The applicant having failed to get the decree through attorney cannot be permitted to seek denovo trial under the garb of production of additional evidence at this belated stage. Finding no substance in the application, the same is dismissed. FAO-M-163-M of 2006 Appellant-wife feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar has filed the present appeal.

(2.) Appellant filed a petition under Sec. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for dissolution of marriage with the respondent/husband-Pardeep Kumar. Appellant pleaded in the petition that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 15.06.1997, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, she joined the company of the respondent in village Samrari, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. Appellant-wife filed the petition for divorce with the following allegations/pleadings:-

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondent on all counts. All the allegations were refuted. Locus of the attorney who filed the petition was challenged, besides challenging the attorney deed being forged and fabricated. By taking all the averments of the petition, respondent-husband pleaded that the appellant was quarrelsome and under the effect of liquor, she used to pick up issues in the matrimonial house and was in the habit of creating scene in the house as well as in the neighbourhood of the locality. She deserted the respondent and treated him with utmost cruelty and caused harassment to the respondent and his family members. The allegations of demand of cash in the year 1998 and thereafter, were denied totally. The allegation of administering injection for miscarriage of pregnancy was also denied.