HARJIT KAUR Vs. JASPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act") for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was allowed, the appellant-wife has approached this Court by way of instant appeal.

(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20.1.2002 at village Sidhwan, Tehsil and District Amritsar according to Hindu rites and rituals. Both the parties lived together as husband and wife and cohabited as such. From the said wedlock, a male child was born on 3.2.2006. At the time of marriage, the respondent-husband was serving in Indian Army. The parents of the respondent-husband treated the appellant-wife like their own daughter and provided all the basic amenities. However, the behaviour and attitude of the appellant-wife towards the respondent-husband and his parents was very rude, cruel and harsh. She was a very short tampered lady and used to pick dispute on petty matters. Even she compelled the respondent-husband to get share of the property from his parents and to live with her parents as a 'Ghar Jawai' or to purchase some kothi in her name in Amritsar. The appellant-wife did not discharge her matrimonial duties as she flatly refused to prepare tea or meals etc. On 21.8.2009, the appellant-wife again asked the respondent-husband to get share from his parents and to purchase a kothi in Amritsar in her name and on his refusal, the appellant-wife left her matrimonial home along with minor son and also took cash and jewellery with her. Inspite of best efforts made by the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife did not turn up to her matrimonial home. She got lodged a criminal case under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent-husband and his parents. However, they were acquitted in the said case by the trial court vide judgment dated 3.2.2016. In this way, the appellant-wife treated the respondent-husband and his family members with cruelty. Accordingly, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The said petition was resisted by the appellant-wife by filing a written statement. Besides raising various preliminary objections, it was pleaded that from the very first day of the marriage, the respondent-husband and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and they started taunting, teasing and tormenting her. They started giving beatings to the appellant-wife and turned her out of the matrimonial home by saying that if she wanted to rehabilitate her, she had to bring more dowry. In February, 2009, she was turned out of her matrimonial home due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry and then her mother gave Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent-husband and his family members. On 21.8.2009, the jeth and jethani of the appellant-wife talked telephonically with the respondent-husband that as she had not brought the car, she be eliminated and they would handle the situation. At their instigation, the appellant-wife was given kick blows by the respondent-husband at her abdomen. The respondent-husband and his family members turned out the appellant-wife from the matrimonial home in the wearing apparels along with the minor child. Due to her physical health, the appellant-wife was admitted in Civil Hospital on 27.8.2009. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. The respondent-husband controverted the averments made in the written statement by filing rejoinder and reiterated those of the averments made in the divorce petition. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-

(3.) In support of his case, the respondent-husband besides examining himself as PW1 also examined Balkar Singh as PW2. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife examined herself as RW1 and Manjit Kaur as RW2 and also tendered into evidence the certified copy of appeal.