VIBHORE SINGH GAUTAM Vs. DEEPIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal has been preferred by the husband Vibhore Singh Gautam, against the judgment and decree dated 11th November, 2016, passed by the Ld. District Judge, Bathinda (in short 'Ld. Court below') vide which his petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the respondent/wife Deepika, was dismissed.

(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the case, as pleaded in the petition filed by the appellant-husband before the Ld. Court below, may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 05.05.2007 at Chandigarh as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, the parties cohabited and lived together as husband and wife and one daughter was born out of the wedlock. It was alleged that the respondent-wife was of a quarrelsome nature and right from the very beginning of their marriage, she would pickup quarrels with the appellant-husband and his family and would not even hesitate to insult them in the presence of one and all; she would treat the appellant-husband with utter disrespect, refusing to even do or take interest in the normal household work, which would be expected of any wife. So much so, whenever the appellanthusband asked her to do some household chores, she would misbehave and create ugly scenes in the house; many a times, the respondent-wife would leave the matrimonial home without the knowledge and consent of the appellant-husband and would be brought back to the matrimonial home by the appellant-husband with a request to mend her ways. The appellant-husband bore the cruel and unbecoming behaviour of the respondent-wife with the hope that good sense may prevail upon her someday, but with the passage of time her behaviour only worsened. Finally in the last week of December 2011, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home along with their minor daughter and all her belongings. The appellant-husband made earnest efforts, even through Panchayats to bring her back to the matrimonial home, which however, did not meet with any success. In the first week of December 2013, with the intervention of respectables from both the sides, a compromise was arrived at between the parties that the marriage be got dissolved by a decree of divorce with mutual consent, as the respondent-wife was unwilling to live with the appellant-husband at any cost and all the articles belonging to the respondent-wife had already been returned to her by the appellant-husband. Thereafter, a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act was filed at Bathinda, but when the case was fixed for final statement of the parties on 18.07.2013, the respondent-wife resiled from the compromise arrived at between the parties and instead started pressurising the appellant-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 20.00 lakhs in cash for suffering the final statement for dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of the Act, else, she would implicate the appellant-husband and his entire family in false cases. In the light of the above, petition filed by the parties under Section 13-B of the Act was dismissed by the Ld. Court below.

(3.) Per contra, in her written statement, the respondent-wife refuted and categorically denied all the allegations of the appellant-husband. While denying the averments made in the petition, she inter alia alleged that in fact it was the appellant-husband who was short tempered and would physically assault her on account of insufficient dowry and over petty matters. She contended that she tolerated the atrocities which were inflicted upon her by the appellant-husband with the hope that his behaviour towards her will improve with the passage of time. She, rather, claimed that in March 2013, it was the appellant-husband, who had turned her out from the matrimonial home with little other than her clothes, even though, she always respected and performed all her marital obligations which are expected from a wife. She further submitted that she was still willing and ready to live with the appellant-husband as his dutiful wife. Further, she denied that any compromise was ever effected between them or that any Panchayat was convened to bring about a compromise between the parties. She, rather, submitted that the appellant-husband had pressurized her to make a statement in the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act for dissolution of marriage and she further denied that she had ever demanded Rs. 20.00 lakhs from the appellant-husband for getting her final statement recorded before the Ld. Court below in the petition under Section 13-B of the Act.