KULDEEP KAUR @ PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. GURMEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-wife has challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.11.2011, passed by the Ld. Addl. Distirct Judge, Sangrur (in short 'Ld. Court below'), whereby, the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was allowed on the ground of desertion.

(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the case, as narrated in the petition filed by the respondent-husband before the Ld. Court below, may be noticed. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20th February, 2001, according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Village Neelowal. After the marriage, the parties resided and cohabited together at Village Moranwali and out of the wedlock a male child was born to the parties on 18.10.2002. It had been averred in the petition by the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife was short tempered, who would at the drop of a hat pickup quarrels on petty and trivial issues leading to a complete turmoil and unrest in the marital life of the parties, which in turn spoilt the entire atmosphere at home. The respondent-husband made earnest efforts to make his marriage with the appellant-wife work by repeatedly pleading with her and counselling her to reform herself but the same fell on deaf ears. She would always find fault with him and would frequently leave her matrimonial home without his consent as and when called by her elder sister Harjeet Kaur's husband namely Amarjeet Singh, who wielded considerable influence on her and her side of the family. As the respondent-wife had been neglecting her matrimonial obligations it led to a lot of acrimony between the spouses and allegedly it had all been happening at the behest of the respondent-wife's brotherin-law i.e. Amarjeet Singh. The mother of the appellant-wife was also taken into confidence and apprised about the un-becoming behaviour of the appellant-wife, but it proved to be of no avail. On 07.03.2006, the appellant-wife withdrew from the society of the respondent-husband without any sufficient and reasonable cause and while leaving her matrimonial home threatened the respondent-husband and his family of dire consequences. Despite all this, the respondent-husband yet again made earnest efforts by taking the help of a Panchayat on 05.10.2006, comprising of respectables from both the sides to persuade the appellant-wife to return to her matrimonial home, but it proved to be a futile exercise. After filing a suit for permanent injunction on 22.03.2006 and a complaint under Section 97 Cr.P.C., the appellant-wife agreed in writing at a Panchayat convened on 05.10.2006 to divorce the respondent-husband for which an amount of Rs.2.4 lakh was given to her as lump-sum maintenance for herself and the minor son. Since the Panchayati divorce did not have legal sanctity, the respondent-husband filed a petition under section 13 of the Act before the

(3.) Per contra, in the written statement filed by the appellant-wife (respondent therein), she refuted and denied all the allegations levelled against her by the respondent-husband. As per her submissions, she was inflicted both mental and physical cruelty by the respondent-husband from the very beginning of her marriage. She was being forced and pressurized to ask for 1/3rd of her share of land from her mother. As she refused to accede to the demands of her greedy respondent-husband, she was physically assaulted and maltreated by the respondent-husband and his mother to the extent of being thrown out of her matrimonial home in just her wearing apparels by snatching her infant child from her after being threatened that she would have to face dire consequences, in case, she dared to return to her matrimonial home, without getting the transfer of the land effected in her name. As per her, it was only with the intervention of the Court that the custody of her infant child was restored to her. She completely denied the factum of the Panchayati divorce dated 05.10.2006 having been arrived at and also denied having any ever received an amount of Rs. 2.4 lakh from the respondent-husband.