JASMEEN KAUR Vs. ONKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ego and recalcitrance are the basis for giving rise to this matrimonial dispute. The husband is a Doctor by profession and the wife possessing Post Graduate qualifications and coming of literate parents serving against gazetted posts in the Education Department. The respondent has humble lineage and living life style of a joint Hindu family. Their is an arranged marriage which was solemnized according to Hindu rites on 14.2.1993. Before the marriage ceremonies could end, this marriage ran into rough weather. The grouse of the respondent is that on 14.2.1993 when he in the company of his relations were solemnizing the marriage, his father-in-law came to his house and compelled him to send the appellant with him as his wife was feeling very much perturbed about her daughter's departure to her in-law's house. The father of the respondent did not approve of this proposal. At that time, the father of the appellant returned to his house but next day i.e. on 15.2.93 again came to his house accompanied by his wife and against the wishes of the respondent and his family members took away the appellant to his house. That after a week the younger brother of the respondent was to be got married and on the day of the marriage i.e. on 18.2.1993, the respondent in the company of his cousin approached the appellant to participate in the marriage but she flatly refused by stating that she was married by her parents against her wish. She showed her inability to put up with him in those surroundings where there was no provision of a bath room having the facility of a Geyser. Incompatibility of social status was shown as hall mark for diminishing the rosy prospects of the marriage. Temporalities of the 'Gurdawara' through Mahant Manjit Singh were also pressed into service to secure reconciliation but they also did not bear any fruit. Before the expiry of one year from the date of the marriage, the respondent had moved the District Judge under Section 16 of the J & K Hindu Marriage Act to obtain the permission to present the petition for divorce but the petition was dismissed. Immediately after the expiry of one year (i.e. on 15.2.1994) the respondent filed petition under Section 13 of the J & K Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred as Act) for obtaining a decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The trial Court (learned Addl. District Judge, Jammu) vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.1996 accepted the petition of the respondent and passed the decree for judicial separation in favour of the respondent and against the appellant herein.

(2.) The judgment and decree has been challenged through the medium of this appeal on the following grounds: (1) The respondent from the very begining was obssessed to get rid of the appellant as within a span of 2-1/2 months from the solemnization of marriage he filed the application before the learned District Judge Jammu for obtaining permission to file the petition of divorce. When that petition was dismissed the respondent did not allow any grass to grow under his feet and on the day of the expiry of the period i.e. on 15.2.1994 filed the petition under Section 13 H.M. Act. Such an abnormal behaviour of the respondent itself dis-entitles him to get any relief. (2) That on the next day of the solemnization of the marriage i.e. on 15.2.1993 the respondent and his brother left the appellant in her parental house and never came to take her back. This they had done because in their estimation the appellant had brought insufficient dowry. The trial Court had fallen into error in holding that appellant had deserted the respondent. There was no evidence to form such a view. The findings of the trial Court are as such, illegal and perverse.

(3.) The respondent has also challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court (by filing appeal C1MA No. 73/96). He has pleaded that on the evidence which is on the record, the trial Court should have granted a decree of divorce instead of granting a decree for judicial separation. The conduct of the appellant is so imperious that it is not possible to live with her in honour and dignity.