MANDEEP KAUR Vs. SUKH DEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1999 passed by the learned District Judge. Mandi in H.M. Petition No. 27 of 1996 whereby the learned trial court has granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the decision of the case are that the parties were married at Amritsar on 6.2.1994 according to Hindu rites. They last resided together in Mandi till December, 1995. Thereafter the wife went and resided with her parents at Amritsar. The husband instituted a petition for grant of divorce on 18.10.1996. The divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty. The instances of cruelty detailed in the petition are as follows: - (a) The wife on account of "Sukhna" undertaken before marriage was to go to Nanaksar in Ludhiana on every Purnima (full moon) for five months after the marriage. Though there was direct bus to Ludhiana from Mandi, but the wife would insist to got the Nanaksar via Amritsar and usually would stay back with her mother. The husband had to go after every 10 or 15 days to bring her back and thus the husband was forced for 5 to 6 days in a month to be absent from his business: (b) The wife and her parents pressurized the husband to leave his parents and stay with them at Amritsar as Gharjawain with the promise that parents of the wife would give him ground floor of their residence for his business. On the refusal of the husband to succumb to this pressure the parents and the wife threatened to implicate him in a case of dowry demand; (c) In January, 1996, in the absence of the husband, the wife alongwith the parents, brother, one Gurcharan Singh Randhawa came to the house of the husband, assaulted and beat the family members of the husband at Mandi regarding which a case under Section 324, 452, 147, 148 I.P.C. was registered with police station Mandi; (d) A false case to pressurize the husband and his family members was registered by the wife at Amritsar for the offences punishable under sections 498 -A, 406 and 120 -B I.P.C. against the husband his parents, brother and sister. The husband and his father were even lodged in judicial custody for 5 days; (e) The wife, when the husband was arrested at Mandi pursuant to the case under section 498 -A, 406 and 120 -B I.P.C. lodged at Amritsar, insisted on the handcuffing of the husband by the police; (f) False complaints were made by the father of the wife to the Honble Chief Minister and Honble the Chief Justice of High Court of HP. which caused undue harassment to the husband and his parents, (g) Neglect of the household affair and misbehavior of the wife with the husband and his parents; (h) The husband was informed about the birth of baby Sofia.

(3.) The wife contested the claim petition and set -up a plea that she had to leave the house of her husband and live with her parents due to ill treatment meted out to her by the husband and his family members and also on account of the fact that they always demanded dowry from her. According to the wife the husband and his family members always asked for money and pressurized her to get atleast Rs. 5,00,000/ - as dowry. She also stated that it was due to this reason that she had lodged a complaint under Section 498 -A, 406 and 120 -B at Amritsar. She also states that earlier the husband had filed a false case against her family members of Mandi. The learned trial court held that the husband had proved the fact that the wife had treated him with cruelty and granted divorce on his ground.