BALBIR KAUR Vs. DHIR DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Balbir Kaur appellant was married to the respondent in March 1971. She claims that on the same day her doli was taken to the house of the respondent when about an hour there after she felt some pain in the abdomen. She was accompanied by her maternal, uncle Hardial Singh A. W. 4, her brother Jagser Singh and Chhoti Nain when it was suggested to the respondent and his parents that she should be provided with some medical treatment. Their request was not acceded to. On the other hand, she was asked to leave the house which she did and reached her father's house in the evening. She put in a petition on 242-1977 for divorce under S. 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that the respondent had deserted her for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for divorce. These allegations were denied in the written statement filed by the respondent who averred therein that he was and continues to be willing to keep the petitioner (now appellant) in his house as his wife. He also set up the plea that the petitioner herself withdrew from his company without any reasonable and probable cause and that in 1976 he had to take out a warrant under S. 97, Criminal Procedure Code, to get her recovered from illegal detention, On the pleas raised by the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues:-

(2.) In this appeal, I have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel. In support of her case, the appellant appeared as PW 1 and stated that she was married to the respondent about six years prior to the date on which she appeared as a witness in the Court. On that, very day, her doli was taken to the house of the respondent. There she got an attack of acute pain in the abdomen. Her brother Jagser Singh, her maternal uncle Hardial Singh A. W. 4 and Chhoti Nain had accompanied her. The respondent told them that she would not get any medical treatment and that they should take her away. She was brought back to her parental home under these circumstances. In cross- examination, she admitted that the marriage of her sister was solemnised one day prior to her marriage and she denied having remained ill prior to her marriage. She also stated that the respondent's father had taken a written Ex. A 1 from her father to the effect that the relations between the parties had come to an end and that both the Parties were at liberty to perform another marriage.

(3.) Atma Dass A. W. 2 is the father of the appellant. He has substantially corroborated her statement. He also denied the suggestion made to him in cross-examination that prior to her marriage the appellant had been suffering from some disease. Even though he stated that he got the appellant treated by Medical Practitioners yet he could not give the names of the Doctors who had prescribed medicines for her, He also deposed about the arrangement incorporated in Ex. A. 1 whereby parents of both the spouses had put an end to the relationship between the parties regardless of the fact whether that arrangement was legally tenable or not. Dan Singh A. W. 3 is an attesting witness of the document marked as Ex. 1 A. l. The last witness produced by the appellant is her maternal uncle Hardial Singh A. W. 4 who has substantially corroborated her statement on all the material points.