SUKHDEV Vs. SANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Sukhdev had filed a divorce petition on 30-7-81 under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of desertion by his wife-respondent Smt. Santosh which was decreed by the learned Distt. Judge, Sriganganagar vide his order dated 5-8-86 and the marriage between the parties were ordered to be dissolved. The learned trial Court had granted permanent alimony of Rs. 150/- per month under Sec. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act at the time of decreeing the divorce petition. The order of trial Court was challenged by the respondent-wife by filing S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 180/86 in the High Court. The learned single Judge vide his order dated 21-10-1987 had set aside the judg-ment of the trial Court. However, the learned single Judge had enhanced the amount of permanent alimony to Rs. 250/- per month from the date of filing of appeal. The wife was also allowed the litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 500/-. Being aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge passed on 21-10-1987, the present special appeal bearing 3/88 has been filed by the husband (appellant) with the prayer to set aside the order of learned single Judge and for restoration of the order of trial Court.

(2.) The parties had married on 9-5-74 at village Dhingarla in Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Churu. Out of the wedlock, a daughter was also born who was of about 6 years at the time of filing the divorce petition. After about 7 years of the marriage, husband had filed the divorce petition alleging therein, that respondent did not live at her in-laws house and was always prepared to go to her parents' house. It was stated that about 3 to 31/2 years before filing of divorce petition, she had gone to her parents' house and thereafter she went to Orissa with her father without consent of the appellant where her father was employed. It was stated in the divorce petition that whenever he went to bring her back, he was told that his wife had gone to Orissa with her father. Even his and his brother's efforts to bring her back to his house had not bore any fruit. Despite the assurances given by his in-laws to the fact that whenever she would come back, she would be sent to him, nothing was done. Even he and his brother and also Hari Singh, Nambardar made efforts to bring her back to their house, but they have not been able to bring her back. In the nut-shell, the appellant alleged that he had made all types of efforts to bring her back, but the respondent did not come back and ultimately he filed the present petition for divorce.

(3.) In the reply filed by the respondent-wife, she had denied the allegations to the fact that she was mostly living at her parents' house. She has further stated that she was living at her in-laws' house. It was stated by her that the appellant being a truck driver in the police department, used to be away most of the times and in his absence, the brother of appellant Bhawani Shanker and her mother-in-law used to ill-treat her, and give her beatings. She even alleged that Bhawani Shanker had once threatened her that she would be sold in the State of Punjab. Because of the circumstances prevailing at the house of her husband, her father was informed. Her father and brother had come to the village and a Village Panchayat was gathered and Bhawani Shanker, brother of appellant had told in the Panchayat that they are not prepared to keep her. She has stated that she had never withdrawn herself from the company of her husband. She has further stated that she was ready and willing to go with her husband. She had denied the fact that at any time, her husband or his brother had ever come or had brought any Panchayat to village Dhingarla to take her back. She had taken a defence that appellant and his family members had turned her out.