JASPAL KAUR Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jaspal Kaur appellant filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') against her husband Sukhdev Singh respondent for grant of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, which has been dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.1985. The present appeal by her is directed against the same.

(2.) In her petition under section 9 of the Act the appellant alleged that she married to the respondent in November, 1976 according to Hindu rites at Patiala. Out of the wedlock two children were born in the years 1977 and 1979. The elder one is a daughter who is living with the respondent and the younger one is a male child living with the appellant. She alleged that the respondent had withdrawn from her society without sufficient cause; that the dowry articles worth more than Rs. 50,000/- were given on the demand of the respondent at the time of marriage; that he was not satisfied with the dowry; that he was jobless; and that her parents arranged a canteen for him by investing a huge amount but he worked there only for a year and then left the same. In the year 1979 he came to her parents and asked them to invest money in a shop from him but they refused to oblige him. In retaliation he refused to take the appellant to his house. On the intervention of some respectables he took her with him on the condition that a shop would be arranged for him by her parents. When the condition was not fulfilled he asked her parents to get a tempo for him so that he could ply the same in Delhi. Her parents, however, declined. Therefore, he turned her out of his house in three clothes and since then she is residing at her parents' house. She further alleged that he wanted to remarry and has got published a matrimonial advertisement in magazine for that purpose. A Panchayat consisting of some respectables approached him with a request for reconciliation but he refused to keep the appellant with him.

(3.) The respondent opposed the petition. He pleaded that the marriage between the parties was void and the children born out of the wedlock were illegitimate. He contended that the appellant was already married to one Attarjit Singh of Jalandhar since 1975, which marriage was still subsisting when the appellant was married to him. He further alleged that the factum of the marriage of the appellant with the said Attarjit Singh was never disclosed to him. He came to know about it subsequently. Since there was no marriage in the eyes of law, his legal objection was that the petition under section 9 of the Act was not maintainable. He controveted the allegations on merits and denied that he had deserted the appellant. On the other hand, he alleged that the appellant had deserted him. In her replication, the appellant admitted her earlier marriage with Attarjit Singh but stated that the said marriage was dissolved before she was married with the respondent and that the factum of earlier marriage and its dissolution was well within the knowledge of the respondent when the marriage between the parties took place.