Kulwinder Kaur vs Taranjeet Singh

Navita Singh, J.—Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Rupnagar, on 01.04.2014, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage between the parties was allowed. The wife came up in appeal challenging the decree on different grounds.

The case of the respondent-husband was that the marriage between the parties was solemnized at village Katala, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, on 22.02.2000 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. They lived together as husband and wife at village Dholran, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar. The marriage was a simple affair and no dowry was given by the parents of the appellant. Soon after the marriage, the behaviour of the appellant-wife became cruel towards the respondent and his mother and she often abused them. She used to leave the matrimonial home at regular intervals without any information to the respondent or his mother. The appellant also quarreled on petty matters with them and also beat her mother-in-law in the absence of her husband. On 24.08.2010, she left the matrimonial home stating that she was going to the house of her parents for ''Raksha Bandhan'', which fell on 26.08.2010. She took the gold ornaments with her and also the younger daughter - Jashanpreet Kaur. She did not return thereafter. The elder daughter-Harman Kaur, however, at that time, remained with the respondent. At the time of filing the petition both the daughters were with the respondent

It was pleaded that the respondent tried to reconcile and even took panchayat to the village of the appellant, but the latter abused them and refused to join his company. She rather filed false complaints against him, his mother, sister and brother-in-law at different places. Earlier, a divorce petition was filed by the respondent, but the same was withdrawn on the basis of compromise before the Mediator. An agreement was arrived at between the parties with the effort of Mediator Jaspinder Kaur, according to which the respondent was to pay an amount of Rs. 6,75,000/- to the appellant. He paid the first instalment of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 04.05.2012, second instalment of the same amount on 25.05.2012 and the final instalment amounting to Rs. 2,75,000/- on 02.07.2012. According to compromise, the parties filed joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act - for short) before the District Judge, Ropar, on 21.05.2012 and on 26.05.2012, joint statement of the parties was recorded and the case was adjourned to 23.01.2013 for second motion. However, at the time of second motion, the appellant did not turn up and ultimately withdrew her consent and for that reason, the petition was dismissed. This caused further mental harassment to the respondent when he parted with an amount of Rs. 6,75,000/- and then the appellant backed out of the compromise. She filed false complaints before the police at Jalandhar and Khanna, but no fault of the respondent or his family was found.

The appellant-wife defended the petition on the ground that the respondent-husband had not come with clean hands and that all the allegations against her were false. She denied that she treated her husband and/or mother-in-law with cruelty and that she used to leave the matrimonial home without their permission. She stated that She visited her parents'' house after a gap of six months. Rather it was the respondent and his mother, who maltreated her for not giving birth to a male child. The respondent and his family wanted that the former should remarry so that a male child could be born to him. She was always ready and willing to live in the matrimonial home. It was denied that any panchayat was taken to the house of her parents by the respondent to bring her back.

In the replication filed by the respondent-husband, he denied all the averments of the appellant-wife and reasserted those made in his petition.

The following issues were settled between the parties by the learned trial Court:--

"1. Whether the respondent (now appellant) has treated the petitioner (now respondent) with cruelty? OPP

Whether the respondent (now appellant) has deserted the petitioner (now respondent) continuously for a period of more than two years immediately preceding the filing of the present petition? OPP

Relief."

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial Court wrongly granted decree of divorce in favour of the respondent though it was the appellant who was subjected to torture in the matrimonial home. He contended that the re ports made to SSP, Jalandhar and SSP, Khanna by the appellant were not false, but action was not taken on those because the Jalandhar police said that since a complaint already stood filed at Khanna, action could be taken at one place, whereas the police in Khanna did not investigate the matter stating that the parties had already knocked the door of the Court. It was not that the complaints were otherwise found false.

Learned counsel for the appellant then argued that the withdrawal of the consent of the appellant in the petition under Section 13-B of the Act was in no way cruelty to the husband because the appellant had withdrawn the consent as good sense prevailed on her and she wanted to save the marriage. However, learned counsel could not give any reason as to why the amount of Rs. 6,75,000/- received by the appellant was not returned and why she could not make up her mind regarding saving the marriage though she had ample opportunity to do so as the amount towards permanent alimony was received by her in three instalments,

The trial Court discussed in detail, the evidence and other material on record for coming to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that there was any demand of dowry by her husband and in-laws or that she had a valid explanation for leaving the matrimonial home on 24.08.2010. It is not the case of the appellant that she had not gone to the house of her parents on that date stating that she was going for ''Raksha Bandhan'' and had not returned thereafter. Her case only was that she was maltreated in her matrimonial home and that the husband made no effort to bring her back.

The respondent led cogent evidence to prove his case, whereas the appellant could not give any reason as to why she had left the matrimonial home because maltreatment, as alleged by her, was not proved. She, therefore, withdrew herself from the company of her husband without sufficient cause. As an after thought she filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act. The appellant admitted in her cross-examination that she had received the amount of Rs. 6,75,000/- and had also received all her dowry articles on the basis of the compromise arrived in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre at Ropar, but could not give any valid reason for withdrawal of consent. She alleged in the criminal complaint that after the death of her father, the respondent and his family members were compelling her to get her share in the property left behind by her father, but in other complaints she levelled allegations that they were raising demand of a car. No case, however, was registered on the complaints made by her. The conduct of the appellant as gathered from the facts given above, did amount to cruelty towards the respondent. The trial Court, therefore, rightly arrived at the conclusion that the appellant-wife had treated the respondent-husband with cruelty.

The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.