GURDEEP SINGH ALIAS TOTA SINGH Vs. JASPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Gurdeep Singh has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bathinda dismissing the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act) for dissolution of marriage.

(2.) THE appellant sought the dissolution of the marriage which was solemnized in the month of July, 1989 on the plea that after the marriage the parties lived together as husband and wife and cohabited at village Mahi Nagpal, District Bathinda. From the said marriage son Gurpreet Singh was horn. It was claimed that the mother of the respondent wife has died and her lather Teja Singh married second time with one Karamjit Kaur. It is claimed that the relations between the appellant and respondent have not been cordial as the attitude of the respondent was harsh and objectionable. The appellant claimed that he and his family members were insulted on small matters. However, said matter used to he resolved peacefully and thus, the parties continued to live even at the cost of harassment and humiliation.

(3.) IT is further the case of the appellant that he filed a petition for restitution of con jugal rights in which the respondent wife did not accept the notice. It is the case of the appellant that on 7.11.1995 respondent and her parents made an application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda leveling serious allegations of harassment, maltreatment and dowry and on inquiry said allegations were found to be false. It was claimed that attitude of the respondent was found to be abnormal and she was got medically examined at Civil Hospital, Bathinda and it was found to be a case of mental retardation. It is the case of the appellant that after the medical report he came to know as to why the respondent was misbehaving with the petitioner. It is further the case of the appellant that in March, 1996 another application was given to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda which was inquired into by the Lady Wing and the said report was also found to be false after appellant and his family members were harassed for about 15 days. It was also claimed that it was a case of broken marriage.