DALIP SINGH Vs. MEENA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, in HMP No.2-P/97/71-P-III/95 dated 31st October, 2000, whereby he has dismissed the petition for divorce filed by the husband-appellant.

(2.) THE appellant-husband, who is serving in the Indian Army, filed a petition for grant of divorce, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on three grounds i.e. adultery, cruelty and desertion. It is alleged that the marriage between the parties took place as per Hindu rites on 16th May, 1993. The husband Dalip Singh and the wife Meena Kumari lived together for about 10 days and on 27th May, 1993 the appellant-husband left to join his place of posting. According to the allegations made in the petition, after the appellant left for the place of his posting, illicit relations developed between Meena Kumari and Dharam Chand (father of the appellant-husband) and they had voluntarily sexual intercourse a number of times till 22nd September, 1993, when the respondent-wife left her matrimonial house and started living with her parents. According to the appellant- husband, he was informed by his mother about the illicit relations between his wife and his father. Other allegations with regard to the mental cruelty and desertion were also leveled against the respondent-wife.

(3.) AT the very outset, it would be pertinent to mention here that the order sheets of the trial court shows that on 30th October, 1995, a statement was made on behalf of respondent No.2 that he does not want to file reply to the petition. Surprisingly, despite this statement having been made, reply has been placed on record of the learned trial court. This reply does not bear any seal of the court or any signature or stamp of the court showing that it was filed with the permission of the Presiding Officer. This reply appears to have been filed along with the rejoinder filed by the appellant-husband. Both, rejoinder filed by the appellant-husband and reply filed by respondent No.2 have been typed on the same typewriter. Both these documents are typed on judicial papers. Rejoinder filed by the appellant-husband is typed on the judicial paper bearing Sr.No.835708 whereas reply filed by the father is on judicial paper bearing Sr.No.835707. This clearly shows that the reply was filed by the father in collusion with his son i.e. appellant-husband.