Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICE G.R. Majithia
KASHMIR KAUR Vs. PREM SINGH On 24 November 1989
Section 13 — Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce on ground of desertion and cruelty — Appeal by wife — Husband a widower having a son from first wife — Appeared that wife is not ablet to reconcile that she has to look after the son from first wife — Presence of son causing heart burning — Document of return of dowry executed in presence of respectables — Wife not willing to return to matrimonial house — Decree of divorce affirmed.
The wife has come up in appeal against the order of the Matrimonial Court whereby it dissolved the marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce.
2. The Facts : —
The husband sought a decree of divorce against his wife on the ground that their marriage was solemnized on November 30, 1980 at village Mehatpur. He was working as a Lower Divisional Clerk at Chandigarh. He was a widower and had a son from his first marriage. It was settled between the parties that the respondent would look after his son from his first wife who is now aged 7 years and living with his father. From the wedlock, a daughter was born and the wife left the matrimonial home on October 31, 1982. The husband took respectable to the parents’ home of the wife to persuade her to return to the consortium but without any success. She came to the house of the husband in November 1982, and took away the articles given to her at the time of the marriage. On September 3, 1985, a panchayat meeting took place at Village Bheora and the wife took away all the dowry articles and writing Ex. P1 was executed evidencing the receipt of the articles and it contained a recital that the wife would not return to the matrimonial home. The wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which she made a statement on May 27, 1987, that she was not ready to return to the matrimonial home since she apprehended danger to her life from her husband. The petition for divorce was filed on October 4, 1986.
3. The wife denied the material allegations made in the petition and to the contrary pleaded that the husband was at fault. He did not want to keep her in the matrimonial home and was pressing her to bring more dowry from her parents. She also stated that she was ready and willing to return to the marital home.
4. The matrimonial court framed the following issues : —
(1) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty ?
(2) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner ?
(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree prayed for ?
5. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were answered in favour of the husband. Issue No. 3 was answered against the wife. Resultantly, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce.
6. I sent for the parties to find out if reapproachment was possible. I tried to bring about reapproachment between them but the attempt was not fruitful and an impression was left on my mind that the wife was responsible for the predicament in which she had placed herself now. The husband is a widower and has a son from his first wife. From the second wedlock, a female child was born. It appears that the wife is not ablet to reconcile that she has to look after the son from the first wife. His presence may have caused heart burning to her and the intense jealousy towards him may have compelled her to forsake the matrimonial home. The sequence of event, namely, taking away dowry articles from the husband’s house and finally executing a document dated September 3, 1985 Ex. PI in the presence of the respectables whereby all the remaining dowry articles lying at the house of the husband were taken away by the wife and her statement in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance for herself and for infant child that she was not willing to return to the matrimonial home since she apprehended danger to her life coupled with the ocular evidence of the husband and the attending circumstances fully justify and the conclusion arrived at by the Matrimonial Court I have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel for the parties and have not been persuaded to take a different view than the one taken by the Matrimonial Court. The wife’s version that the husband was guilty of matrimonial offence and it was his conduct which resulted in the breakdown of the marriage is not acceptable. The plea of the wife is that on the birth of the daughter, the husband adopted a hostile attitude towards her. He was also demanding a scooter and refrigerator from her. This plea appears to be an after thought. In her own statement, she admitted that for one and a half year the relations between the parties were cordial and if there had been any semblance of truth in what is stated by her now, she would not have hesitated in raising this plea at the initial stage when she came to the court for maintenance and also before the Panchayat.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no force in the appeal. The same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.