Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 32 (PNJ)

Resham Singh v. Kuldip Kaur

2003-01-08

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
ORDER Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) - The husband is aggrieved against the order dated 13.11.1999 whereby his petition for dissolution of the marriage was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. 2. The marriage between the parties were solemnized on 20.3.1988. Two children born out of the wedlock are residing with the respondent. The husband has sought the dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty alleging therein that the respondent insisted for separate accommodation in the City and stayed at her parents house for about three months at a stretch. Howsoever, she was brought back to the matrimonial home with the condition that her parents will not interfere in the domestic life but still her parents regularly interfered in the life of the husband. It is further alleged that on 13.2.1993, parents of the husband were arrested and on intervention of the Station House Officer Raj Kumar, the matter was compromised and the parents were released. A written compromise was affected on 14.2.1993 wherein a condition was recorded that the respondent will not leave the house without his permission. However, in the month of January, 1994 when she was pRegulation nt, she left the house and gave birth to a child at her parents house. Subsequently, on 13.2.1995, the respondent left the house of the petitioner in his absence. Initially, he filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was withdrawn and subsequently sought dissolution of marriage. 3. Wife-respondent appeared and controverted the allegation stating that the present petition is a counter-blast to the application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She stated that the behaviour and conduct of the petitioner has been very harsh and cruel and he had been threatening to remarry in order to get more dowry. Thus, he was practising pressurise tactics. In April, 1995, she was turned out from the matrimonial home along with children. A Panchayat was convened at the house of Gurbhej Singh, Sarpanch but the petitioner did not come to the Panchayat when he was called. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case and find no ground to differ with the finding recorded by the trial court. 5. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case and find no ground to differ with the finding recorded by the trial court. 5. The allegation of the appellant that the respondent used to go with her parents without his consent or the behaviour of the respondent is harsh and cruel are the allegations which are generally levelled. The statement of the witness that the respondent never cooked food for her husband or she used to go outside from her in-laws house without informing anybody are not sufficient to dissolve marriage between the parties. The learned trial Court has relied upon the compromise dated 14.2.1993 Ex. PW6/1. This compromise does not show any cruel treatment on the part of Kuldeep Kaur. In fact, it is the appellant who has written that he will not maltreat Kuldeep Kaur, in any manner, or nor he will leave her. The appellant has admitted the execution of the compromise. However, in appeal, it is stated that the said compromise is result of coercion. However, no such plea was raised in the petition for seeking dissolution of marriage. In the absence of pleadings of coercion of fraud, it is not open to the appellant to dispute such compromise in the first appeal. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that there was any coercion while entering into such compromise. Still, in the compromise itself, it has been mentioned that the husband wanted to contract second marriage and, therefore, it was stated that he will not maltreat Kuldeep Kaur. 6. In view of the said written compromise, the marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved as it will amount to giving premium on the wrongs committed by the appellant himself. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are the possible finding in law. I do not find any reason to differ with such finding. Consequently, I do not find any merit and, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.