HARJIT @ HARJEET KAUR GILL Vs. SUKH PREET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Family Court, Faridkot dated 29.08.2016 whereby, the petition of the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, has been allowed exparte.

(2.) The marriage of the appellant-wife was solemnized with the respondent on 03.12.2007. Out of the wedlock, a child namely Avneet Kaur was born, who is stated to be living with the appellant in Canada.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was a citizen of Canada at the time of her marriage and marriage was solemnized because the respondent wanted to settle in Canada. When he got permanent residency from Canadian Government, he started quarreling with the appellant as he wanted to marry another Indian girl. The respondent had been residing with the appellant for over 08 years. However, he later came to India and did not return back to Canada despite the requests of the appellant-wife. He has also contended that the decree had been passed by the Family Court exparte without service having been effected on the appellant. The address, which was furnished by the respondent i.e. 2 Griffith Court Brampton, Toronto (Canada)-L7A3T6 is a house, which belongs to both the appellant and the respondent and when the respondent was in Canada they along with the child were residing thereat. However, after the respondent returned to India and at the time when the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was preferred by the respondent, the appellant was not residing thereat. She had been residing at 140 EARLSBRIDGE BL VD : BRAMPTON, ON L7A 3S7. She along with her daughter was residing at her parental home in Canada and this fact was well known to the respondent. He had deliberately not mentioned this address at which she was residing. He also contends that the appellant is ready and willing to reside with the respondent as agreed to by the parties at the time of the marriage. Their daughter is residing at Canada and the appellant is doing three part time jobs at Canada and would be willing to come to India for a period of one month and the respondent is free to come and reside with her at Canada, both in the interest of their marriage and the welfare of the child.