Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 16 (PNJ)

Reval Kumar v. Amarjeet Alias Brij Bala

2003-01-08

V.M.JAIN

body2003
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the Divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife. 2. The facts in brief are that Rewal Kumar appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent-wife, for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It was alleged that the marriage between the parties was solemnised at Panipat and that after the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife and out of this wedlock, two sons were born. It was alleged that behaviour of the respondent-wife towards the appellant and his family members had been arrogant and uncivilised from the very beginning and due to this behaviour of the respondent, the appellant could not live in a peaceful manner. Even the parents of the respondent were critical towards the appellant and they did not allow the respondent to live like a Hindu wife with the appellant. It was alleged that on 19.7.1992, the respondent-wife deserted the company of the appellant without reasonable cause, whereupon the appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and later on the said petition was withdrawn as the parties agreed to live together as husband and wife. It was alleged that the respondent, however, did not comply with the agreement and after waiting for quite long, the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act with the sole object to compel the respondent to return to the matrimonial home. It was alleged that the said petition was dismissed on 21.11.1996, It was alleged that a complaint under Sections 406, 498-A I.P.C. and a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were pending between the parties. It was alleged that on 23.7.1997, a Mahila Lok Adalat was convened and on the persuasion of the Mahila Lok Adalat, the respondent had agreed to live with the appellant at his house and the respondent was directly sent to the appellants house from the court. It was alleged that after some days, again the behaviour of the respondent became the same and she made the life of the appellant miserable. It was alleged that after some days, again the behaviour of the respondent became the same and she made the life of the appellant miserable. It was alleged that on 13.1.1999, on the day of Lohri festival, the respondent at the instigation of her parents, started quarrelling with the appellant and insisted that she would celebrate the festival at the house of her parents and when the appellant tried to convince her, she threatened to kill herself and under that pressure, the appellant allowed her to go. It was alleged that since then, the respondent was residing with her parents. It was alleged that various efforts made by the appellant to reconcile the matter proved futile. It was alleged that the respondent had been threatening to involve the appellant in some false case. It was further alleged that all the jewellery articles were given to the parents of the respondent and that since the 13.1.1999, the respondent had deserted the appellant. 3. In the written statement filed by the respondent-wife, it was alleged that the respondent was ready to accompany the appellant any time without any condition. It was alleged that the appellant had played tricks upon her and that the appellant and his family members had given heatings to the respondent on 14.1.1999 and she was turned out of the house and was threatened to be killed. It was alleged that since then, the respondent was residing with her parents. 4. After hearing both the sides and after perusing the records, the learned trial Court found that the appellant-husband had failed to prove the allegation of cruelty as a ground for divorce. Resultantly, the Divorce Petition was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant-husband filed the present appeal in this Court. 5. At the time of arguments, no one came present on behalf of the respondent-wife. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record carefully. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband could not point out any illegality in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, while dismissing the divorce petition filed by the husband. At the time of arguments, no one came present on behalf of the respondent-wife. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record carefully. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband could not point out any illegality in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, while dismissing the divorce petition filed by the husband. 1 have gone through the entire evidence led by the parties with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record, in my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge had given the finding regarding cruelty based on the evidence led by the parties and it is not possible to take a different view, other than the view taken by the learned Addition District Judge while dismissing the divorce petition. This is especially so when the appellant had miserably failed to prove that the respondent had caused cruelty to the appellant. So far as the allegations desertion is concerned, the divorce petition was filed on 15.5.1999, whereas the parties were residing separately since 13/14.1.1990 and under these circumstances, the desertion as a ground for divorce is not available to the appellant-husband. In view of the above, finding no merit in the appeal, the came is hereby dismissed.