(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-husband - Amar Nath Gill against the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2008 vide which the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') was allowed by the trial Court.
(2.) Few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated in the petition before the learned Court below may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 01.05.2002 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Shimla. This was the second marriage of both the parties. After the marriage, the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife lived and cohabited together at Shimla, then Kalka and lastly again at Shimla. No child was born out of the said wedlock. The appellant-husband had a married daughter and a handicapped son from his earlier marriage while the respondent-wife had a son from her first marriage, who after her divorce remained in her custody.
(3.) As per averments made by the respondent-wife in her petition filed under Section 9 of the Act, the appellant-husband was 54 years of age at the time of marriage and the responsibility of his handicapped son had been taken over by his married daughter. Further, at the time of their marriage, the appellant-husband did not object to keep the minor son of the respondent-wife, who was aged 7 years at that time. He was also not averse to the wife completing her JBT training which she was undergoing at that time so that she could take up a suitable job later on. It was on this assurance given to the respondent-wife that the marriage was solemnized between them. Since the respondent-wife was still studying at the time of marriage, she resumed her studies, after staying for 10 days with the appellant-husband at Shimla. As per the respondent-wife, the parties along with the children i.e. handicapped son of the husband and her son from the previous marriage started residing at Kalka and on completion of her training in March, 2003, the parties shifted back to Shimla where she showered love and affection on both the appellant-husband and the handicapped son. There was a marked improvement in the health of the handicapped son. However, the handicapped son indulged in inappropriate behaviour towards the respondent-wife, which was brought to the notice of the appellant-husband but it boomeranged as thereafter he started subjecting the respondent-wife to maltreatment. In the second week of July, 2004 the mother of the respondent-wife along with some relatives visited her matrimonial home and requested the appellant-husband to counsel the handicapped son but the appellant-husband forced the respondent-wife to leave the matrimonial home with her mother. After a fortnight, the appellant-husband came to the house of the mother of the respondent-wife and assured them that he would treat the respondent-wife well. The respondent-wife, on this assurance, accompanied him back to Shimla. In December, 2004, the respondent-wife got a job as a teacher in a government school in District Panchkula to which the appellant-husband had no objection. The respondent-wife would visit her matrimonial home over the weekends. However, subsequently the appellant-husband started compelling her to quit her government job and would maltreat her as a result of which she was left with no other option but to lodge a complaint with the police in May, 2005. The matter was however, compromised between the parties but the same was short lived as the appellant-husband again started pressurizing her to resign from her job, which led to her also being beaten up by the appellant-husband on 17.06.2005. Under these compelling circumstances, she came to her mother's house along with her son. Even though the respondent-wife made earnest efforts to join the company of her husband at Shimla but the same met with no success. She contended that despite discharging her matrimonial duties and obligations, the appellant-husband refused to take her back without any just and sufficient cause.