BALWINDER KAUR Vs. SURJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is wife's appeal against judgment dated 27.3.1999 vide which the learned Trial Judge, while allowing the petition filed by the respondent-husband, ordered the dissolution of the marriage, between the parties.

(2.) IT is apparent from record that the respondent-husband applied for dissolution of marriage on plea of cruelty. The parties were married, as per Anand Karaj on 11.5.1985. However, no issue was born out of their union. The respondent-husband was in the Army. After the marriage, he went to his place of posting. He had throughout been posted elsewhere; while appellant-wife continued denied to stay with her-in-laws at the matrimonial house. When the respondent came home for the first time after the marriage, he was informed by his parents that the appellant-wife had not been behaving properly with them and that she would pick up quarrel even on a petty matter. The respondent asked the appellant to be reasonable and to mend her ways. Whenever the respondent would go to his place of posting, the appellant would leave the matrimonial home and go over to her natal house. She would return to the matrimonial house only when it would be time for the respondent-husband to come home on leave. The respondent did make a grievance of that fact and also the behaviour of the appellant to her parents but it had no effect upon her behaviour. In September, 1997, the appellant left the matrimonial house and has not returned thereto ever since then. The respondent had taken a number of panchayats to the natal house of the appellant to ensure her return to the matrimonial house but she declined to join the matrimonial company of the husband. On the other hand, the appellant filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C, which was dismissed by the Court on 9.1.1992. However, an appeal filed by the appellant was accepted by the Appellate Court on 4.3.1994 and maintenance allowance came to be awarded in favour of appellant-wife. Thereafter, the appellant also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed by the Court of the then learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhari on 25.7.1992. However, inspite of decretal thereof, the appellant did not resume matrimonial ties by going over to her matrimonial house. It was on the above allegations that the respondent filed a plea for dissolution of marriage.

(3.) THE learned Trial Court gave finding under both the issues in favour of the respondent-husband.