ANGREZ KAUR Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), filed by Baldev Singh, respondent, was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide her order dated September 21, 1978. The respondent wife (now appellant) has challenged the said decree is the present appeal.

(2.) The facts which are established and are more or less admitted, are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on February 16, 1948, at village Nidhempur, Tahsil and District Sangrur. After three years of the marriage, a daughter was born. One year after, another daughter was born who, however, died shortly after, Some time thereafter, separation between the two spouses was brought about. The respondent husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution o! conjugal rights on January 15, 1962 which was dismissed by the senior Subordinate Judge, Sangrur, by his judgment dated Oct. 22, 1963, and a copy o! the same is Exhibit R. 2. According to the findings arrived at, it was the husband (now respondent) who had maltreated his wife and had not kept her well Further conclusion was also reached that the wife (the appellant) had, in fact, been turned out from the house by him. This order was not challenged. Thus, the finding regarding the maltreatment meted out to the appellant by the respondent has become final. The appellant filed a petition under Section 488, Cr.P.C. 1898, on Feb. 8, 1962, for maintenance for herself as well as for her daughter, This petition was allowed by the Magistrate by order dated August. 9, 1963. Rs. 30/- per mensem was allowed as maintenance to the appellant and Rs. 20/- per mensem to her daughter from the date of the application. Execution application was filed for the recovery of this amount of maintenance in 1964 by the appellant. The objections raised by the respondent were dismissed on December 24, 1965. The revision challenging the order filed by the respondent was dismissed by the District Judge on March 14, 1966 and further revision was dismissed by the High Court by order dated March 6, 1967, a certified copy of which is, Exhibit R.1, on the record. Its perusal shows that the respondent made offer in the High Court to take back the appellant to his house. The appellant accepted the offer provided one Piara Singh furnished security for her safety. According to the respondent, he had taken and Piara Singh to the appellant, but she refused to a company him. According to the appellant, neither the respondent nor said Piara Singh had ever gone to her for the purpose of reconciliation. The learned single Judge who decided the case summoned Piara Singh for his satisfaction who denied to have ever accompanied the respondent to bring about compromise between the parties. As a consequence, the High Court came to a firm conclusion that the offer by the respondent to take the appellant back to resume matrimonial ties was not bona fide and the revision petition was dismissed. Before the final decision of the revision petition, however, the arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs. 2,900/- were paid by the respondent to the appellant. Thereafter, no initiative appears to have been taken by either of the spouses either for the recovery of the amount of maintenance or for any other purpose. It was only on October 25, 1977, that is, after about 29 years of the solemnization of the marriage and after about 15 years of the separation that the petition for the dissolution of the marriage was presented.

(3.) According to the averments made in para 4 of the petition, the only ground for claiming divorce was that since for a long time both the spouses were living separately, it had become quite impossible for them to live together as husband and wife. In reply to this allegation, the appellant alleged that it was the respondent who had maltreated her and turned her out of the house, Reference was also made to the order of maintenance and the order of the High Court, a copy of which is, Exhibit R. 2, in evidence however, a new case was made out by the respondent by producing Jagir Singh, P.W. 2, Hernek Singh, P.W. 3, to show that they along with the respondent had gone about ten times to village Nidhampur where the appellant was residing with her brother to make an attempt to bring her back, but she declined the o8er. The appellant in her statement expressly denied it any person had gone to her for reconciliation and it was alleged that it was the respondent who having been dissatisfied with the insufficient dowry, used to taunt her and turn her out of the house by subjecting her to beating. Corroborative evidence was also forthcoming in the statements of Natha Singh, R. W. 3 and Hardev Singh, R. W. 4, that no person on behalf of the respondent had come as a Panchayat for the purpose of reconciliation.