GURSANT SINGH Vs. MANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 20.3.2019 by which a petition filed by him under Section 13/11(5) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short 'the Act '] for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 07.03.2002 as per Sikh rights by way of Anand Karaj at Village Jalur, District Sangrur. The brother of the appellant was also married to the sister of the respondent. It is alleged that the appellant was 15 years of age at the time of his marriage, therefore, muklawa did not take place at that time. It is further averred that about 11 years ago, the appellant had convened a Panchayat and went to the house of his in-laws requesting them to send the respondent with him but at that time he was told that the respondent is suffering from TB in an advance stage, suffering from mental pathic disorder and is not fit to give birth to a child and is also hard of hearing. It is averred that the respondent did not join the society of the appellant and had not accompanied him to his village Bhutal Kalan since 7.3.2002. The respondent had allegedly made a false complaint against the appellant in the Women Cell which was dismissed. The respondent never wanted to live with the appellant. She had filed a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short the Cr.P.C.] which was allowed on 13.4.2011 and the appellant was directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month. The appellant filed a revision petition against the said order which was dismissed on 03.01.2014. During this period, the appellant filed divorce petition against the respondent which was dismissed on 14.1.2013 on the ground that the appellant had not paid the amount of maintenance to the respondent and was not entitled to decree of divorce. The appellant filed FAO-M-78-2013 before this Court which was dismissed on 11.7.2013 on the ground that the appellant is not paying maintenance regularly. In the month of February 2016, he convened the Panchayat and requested the respondent and her family members for divorce and at that time the family members of the respondent demanded Rs. 8/10 lakhs from him but when the appellant showed his inability to fulfill the illegal demand of the respondent 's family then he was threatened to be implicated in a false ease. It is alleged that because of that the appellant had suffered mental cruelty and his life has become difficult on account of desertion.

(3.) On the other hand, the respondent has admitted the factum of marriage but it is denied that it was a simple one. It was also denied that the appellant was 15 years of age at time of marriage rather it is alleged that she was 18 years of age. The theory of muklawa was also denied rather it is alleged that she was sent to her matrimonial home along with appellant at the time of her marriage where she continued to reside for 5-6 months and during this period the marriage was consummated also. It is further alleged that the appellant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry articles and started maltreating, torturing, beaten her and threw her out of the matrimonial home after six months of the marriage. It is also denied that any Panchayat is convened and he went to village Jallur. It is denied that she is suffering to from TB or mental disorder or is not fit to give birth to a child and is hard of hearing. It is also denied that she has deserted the appellant from 7.3.2002 rather it is alleged that the appellant is not paying maintenance from the last two years. It is averred that the appeal is barred by the principle of res judicata.