MANINDER KAUR Vs. HARVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Maninder Kaur has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the petition filed by her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, "the Act") seeking dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, marriage between the parties was solemnized on 02.09.2012 and out this wedlock, no child was born. The respondenthusband and the in-laws of the appellant-wife were not satisfied with the arrangement of marriage and had shown their dissatisfaction with the dowry given in the marriage. The husband started complaining that the appellant is not pretty and not a suitable match for him. He used to take liquor and other intoxicants and thereafter, he hurled filthy abuses at the appellant daily. The appellant tried to restrain the respondent from taking excess liquor, but instead of stopping liquor, the respondent used to rebuke her. Two months after the marriage, the respondent left for abroad with an assurance that he will make an arrangement for calling the appellant there. But after reaching Greece, the respondent telephonically informed the appellant that he has no intention to call her to Greece and he will solemnize marriage with a girl of his choice there. When the appellant had brought this fact to the notice of her in-laws, they replied that they could not interfere in the matrimonial life of their son. The appellant brought this fact to the notice of her parents as well, who convened a meeting with the family members of the respondent. However, the family members of the respondent reiterated their stand that they will not interfere in the matrimonial life of the appellant and the respondent. Finding no alternative, the appellant started residing with her parents from 01.11.2013 onwards. The appellant made repeated entreaties to the respondent for her rehabilitation in her matrimonial house or abroad, but the respondent did not listen to her and rather, openly reiterated his desire not to call the appellant to Greece or to resume cohabitation with her. Since then, the respondent is not responding to the appellant and is not willing to treat her as his wife. Thus, the act and conduct of the respondent is sufficient to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(3.) The respondent has been represented by his attorney namely Amarjit Singh and written statement has been filed, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and concealment of facts by the appellant. On merits, it has been denied that prior to marriage, the respondent was residing in Greece. Rather, he was residing in Italy. It has been denied that the respondent ever misbehaved with the appellant under the influence of liquor or abused her in any manner. The appellant was extended due respect in the matrimonial home and all possible amenities were provided commensurating her status.