Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 918 (PNJ)

Mohinder Shah Singh v. Mrs. Dalbir Kaur

2001-08-24

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2001
ORDER Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- husband against the dismissal of his divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 2. Marriage between the parties took place on 12.5.1976 and out of this wedlock, a son was born on 15.8.1977 who is stated to be living with the wife and now being 24 years of age is said to be in the Air Force. The appellant- husband filed a divorce petition on 30.3.1993 alleging, inter alia, that the wife was cruel to him and she deserted him from October 1976 to November 1986 and later on from August 1989 she was living separately; she was employed as Mistress and was neglecting the husband. She wanted the husband to shift to her parents house; father of the wife threatened the husband that he will implicate him in a false case; the wife wanted the husband to get a share in the property of his parents and started living in the house of her parents. The husband was not allowed to live with the son. The wife contested the petition stating inter alia, that the divorce was sought about seventeen years after the marriage and since the parties had resumed cohabitation in the year 1986 and lived together till August 1989, the alleged acts of cruelty prior to 1986 were not relevant. The wife had been threatened by the husband and his family members and the husband had neglected the wife and the child. 3. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on the record rejected husbands version and held that the husband was not able to prove the allegations of cruelty and desertion levelled by him against the wife. It was observed that from the allegations made by the husband, inference of cruelty could not be drawn. It was further held that from living separately by the wife, inference of desertion could not be drawn, as she had no animus deserendi. 4. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. Since neither the parties nor their counsel appeared before the Lok Adalat, it was observed that there was no possibility of compromise between the parties. The matter was, therefore, sent back to this Court for decision on merits. 5. I have heard Mr. H.S. Gill, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. Since neither the parties nor their counsel appeared before the Lok Adalat, it was observed that there was no possibility of compromise between the parties. The matter was, therefore, sent back to this Court for decision on merits. 5. I have heard Mr. H.S. Gill, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.C. Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the trial court that the husband was not able to prove the allegations of cruelty and desertion and thus was not entitled to divorce. 7. Mr. Gill submitted that the husband was willing to keep the wife. Mr. Kapoor appearing on behalf of the wife submitted that he will advise his client to try to live together. The parties will be free to make efforts for reconciliation. 8. Having regard to the facts of the case and the material on the record, I am of the view that no case to grant divorce is made out. This appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.