LAWS(P&H)-1996-5-61

KAILASH RANI Vs. KIMTI LAL

Decided On May 20, 1996
KAILASH RANI Appellant
V/S
KIMTI LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is wife's appeal against decree of divorce granted on April 28, 1988, by Mr. M.L. Singal, Additional District Judge, Amritsar, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

(2.) UNCONTROVERTED facts of the case are that wife-appellant was married to petitioner-respondent Kimti Lal on February 4, 1971, at Amritsar according to Hindu rites. The matrimonial home is at Tarn Taran. In this wedlock appellant Kailash Rani has given birth to three children, who were agreed 13, 11 and 10 years at the time when the petition was presented in the month of December 1986. Since November 1979 they are living separately. The children are with the mother. Appellant-wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the husband/father claiming maintenance for herself and her children, which is allowed by the Magistrate's Court. Husband-respondent also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act), which was dismissed.

(3.) WIFE -appellant in her written statement repudiated all these allegations and asserted that she always behaved like a dutiful wife/daughter-in-law in the matrimonial home, but she was harassed and maltreated by her husband as he was not satisfied with the dowry brought by her. He demanded cash for his business. As her father had died and her brother is not in good financial position to give the demanded cash to the husband, she was maltreated. Ultimately she was beaten and was turned out of the matrimonial house along with all the children. She has also denied that she ever threatened him to commit suicide and to implicate the whole of his family in a criminal case. She filed maintenance petition, which is allowed. Thereafter the husband- respondent used to come to Amritsar at her parental home to pay her maintenance and on those occasions he used to reside with her for few days. Thus, both the grounds of cruelty and desertion are emphatically denied. On these pleadings, issues were framed. Parties adduced their evidence.