AMARJIT KAUR Vs. SURINDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-wife by way of this appeal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, allowing a petition filed by the respondent husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the pleadings, that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 4.12.1994 at Shiv Ashram, Tej Bagh Colony, Patiala, according to Hindu rites by way of Anand Karaj. After marriage, the parties lived together and cohabited as husband and wife till 28.4.1997. During this period, the appellant conceived pregnancy for two times, but she got aborted the child, without the consent of the respondent. The appellant thereafter conceived for third time and delivered the male child, who died later on. The case of the respondent husband was, that this fact was kept concealed by the appellant and her parents from the respondent.

(2.) IT was also pleaded, that the marriage between the parties was simple and no dowry articles or gift were given in the marriage. It was the case of the respondent-husband that after the marriage, the behaviour of the appellant was cruel towards respondent as well as his family members. The allegations levelled were, that the appellant-wife on many occasions refused to prepare meals for the respondent and his family members and even did not serve a cup of tea to any guest or relative of the respondent, whenever they came to meet him. It was also the case of the respondent-husband that the appellant used to claim that she was in service and she did not like the atmosphere of the village, and that she did not like to live in the village. She compelled him to live in the city. On refusal of the respondent to leave his parents, the appellant used to quarrel with the respondent and his parents and often left the matrimonial home to live with her parents for couple of days. It was also the case of the respondent that the appellant used to leave the matrimonial home without permission or consent of the respondent, who brought her back on number of occasions from her parental home. It was also the pleaded case of the respondent that the appellant used to compel him to get his share transferred in her name directly, but on inability having been shown by him, the respondent used to create trouble for the respondent and raise dispute in the family. It was also alleged that the appellant used to abuse the family members of the respondent and used filthy language against them. The request of the respondent to mend her behaviour and live in the family peacefully and like a good educated lady was not paid any heed. It was the case of the respondent that the father of the appellant was the main hindrance, as he did not want her to live in the joint family in the village. The appellant was also said to be rude towards the respondent and his family members. It was further pleaded case that after marriage, the appellant disclosed that she did not want child at an early stage and it was due to this reason that she got aborted the child, without the consent of the respondent. It was also alleged, that father of the appellant openly declared that he did not like the respondent, as he was not acting according to his wishes and wishes of the appellant. It was also alleged that she was playing in the hands of her father. It was claimed that younger sister of the appellant was also staying in her parental home because of the interference of the parents of the appellant. He further alleged that he was not invited to the marriage of her sister.

(3.) ON notice, the appellant contested the petition and repudiated the allegations in toto. The appellant-wife admitted the marriage between the parties, and it was asserted that the parties lived and cohabited upto 10.6.1997 and not 28.4.1997. The appellant claimed, that she was turned out of the house by the respondent in wearing clothes, after giving beating to her. It was denied that the appellant herself got aborted two times. It was pleaded that the appellant got premature delivery of male child on 28.4.1995 at Roop Rai Nursing Home and Clinical Laboratory, Sanaur. The child died after 24 hours due to premature delivery, as it was only six months old. Second time the appellant was admitted in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, on 13.5.1996 due to the pregnancy and she got treatment and was discharged on 8.6.1996. She was again admitted on 20.6.1996 and on that day, there was abortion of child due to heavy bleeding. The said foetus was only four months and twenty days old and female. It was pleaded case of the appellant that in spite of message having been sent to the respondent, he did not come to enquire about the health of the appellant. The appellant herself bore all the medical expenses, and respondent never gave or spent any penny on her. On the third occasion, the appellant was admitted in pregnant condition on 3.8.1997 in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, and she was discharged on 6.9.1997, after treatment. She was again admitted in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, and male child was born to her on 26.10.1997, who died after two months due to infection and fever. It was denied, that the fact regarding delivery and death of the child was concealed by the appellant or her parents. It was asserted that the respondent and his parents were duly informed, but they failed to turn up. It was also alleged that at the time of marriage, various dowry articles were given and a good marriage was performed. The allegations of cruelty were denied. It was also denied that she ever refused to prepare meals or serve tea, as alleged. It was pleaded by the appellant wife that the behaviour of the respondent was cruel towards her. It was the case of the appellant that the respondent was man of bad habits and wasteful nature. He used to consume liquor daily and beat her in drunken state, whenever the appellant stopped him from taking liquor. He was also said to use filthy language. It was the case of the appellant wife that she was in service from the very beginning and had never asked the respondent-husband to live in the city. The allegations that the appellant used to quarrel with the respondent and his parents was also denied. She also denied the allegations that she used to leave her matrimonial home without the consent of the respondent. It was the case of the appellant, that it was the respondent, who used to leave the house for many days without informing the appellant. The allegation that the appellant had sought transfer of his share in land, was also denied. She also denied having abused the respondent or his family members. The allegations levelled against the father of the appellant were also denied. It was also denied that she did not want child at early stage. It was averred that the younger sister of the appellant, namely, Paramjit Kaur was married to Baljinder Singh of Miranpur. He and his parents were said to be greedy persons, and not satisfied with the dowry articles and demanded more dowry. It was also alleged, that Paramjit Kaur used to be given beating and that she was turned out of the house. It was denied that the father of the appellant was interfering in the matrimonial home of Paramjit Kaur on which account the matrimonial life of Paramjit Kaur was disturbed. The appellant denied having left the house on 28.4.1997. It was pleaded that she was turned out of the house by respondent on 10.6.1997 in three wearing clothes, after giving her beating. She denied having taken her dowry articles, jewellery etc. She also denied the visit of the respondent with the panchayat in January, June and October, 1998. The allegation of threats by father of the appellant was also denied. It was further denied that the appellant caused mental agony or cruelty to the respondent. It was pleaded that behaviour of the respondent was cruel towards the appellant, therefore, he was not entitled to decree of divorce. Objection was also raised that the petition was not signed and verified by the respondent.