TIRATH SINGH Vs. KULWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tirath Singh has filed this appeal against the judgment dated November 30, 1976, passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby his petition for dissolution of his marriage with Kulwant Kaur through a decree of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant had at first presented a petition on July 18, 1973, under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act ground of desertion which was said to have extended for a period of more than two years. In view of the amendment in section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act providing for a decree of divorce on the basis of desertion for more than two years the appellant filed an amended petition after obtaining the permission of the Court. That petition was filed on August 31, 1976. Prior to that another petition under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of nullity of marriage was filed on February 16, 1976. Mansha Singh had given a statement in the earlier proceedings on August 8, 1975, wherein he disclaimed Kulwant Kaur respondent to be his daughter. The appellant then pleaded that a fraud had been committed upon him as it was given out that the respondent was Mansha Singh's daughter. He further alleged that he would not have married her if he had known that she was somebody else's daughter. Both the petition were consolidated and were dismissed by a common judgment. However, the appellant did not file any appeal against the dismissal of his petition for the nullity of marriage.

(3.) The marriage between the parties was solemnised on January 30, 1966, at Mansa. They were residing at Nabha when according to the appellant, the respondent left his house in the company of her father on April 13, 1971. Desertion was said to have taken place from that date. It was pleaded by the appellant that the respondent took with her all her ornaments and a cash amount of Rs. 1,200. Further according to the appellant, he had been trying to bring back the respondent to his house but she never came back. The respondent pleaded that she had not been treated in a proper manner by the husband and he ultimately turned her out of the house about a year before the institution of the proceedings by the husband. Subsequently this evidence was led that the separation between the parties took place in the month of May, 1972. The respondent showed her desire to live with the appellant in the written statement filed by her. It was further stated that the appellant never agreed to take her back to his house.