MOHINDER PAL SINGH Vs. GURCHARAN KAUR RANDHAWA
LAWS(DLH)-1983-7-8
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on July 25,1983

MOHINDER PAL SINGH RANDHAWA Appellant
VERSUS
GURCHARAN KAUR RANDHAWA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VINOD CHANDRA DUBE V. SMT. ARUNA DUBE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Leila Seth, J. - (1.)This is a husband's appeal against the judgment and order, dated 17th February, 1982, passed by Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional District Judge, Delhi. By this order a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (to be referred to as "the Act"), has been refused.
(2.)Mr. Mohinder Pal Singh Randhawa, the appellant, was married to the respondent Gurcharan Kaur on 22nd February, 1959 at Delhi. The marriage was celebrated in accordance with Sikh rites. Thereafter, they lived together and had two children. The first was Mohinder Paul, a son, nicknamed Kukki, who was born on 17th February, 1961 at Delhi, and the second was a daughter named Shamin, nicknamed Sherry who was born on 11th April, 1967.
(3.)On 27/28th July, 1981, the husband moved a petition for divorce on the grounds that his wife had committed adultery, had deserted him and was cruel. He asserted therein, inter alia, that Gurcharan Kaur had left the matrimonial home onllthJuly,1971. According to him, they were a normal married couple, when he went in September, 1970 to the United States for purposes of a business collaboration. However, when he returned to India after about ten months on 6th July, 1971, he discovered that she had contracted a relationship with one Mr. Vijay Kumar Prabhakar. This was a gentleman, in whose favour, the appellant had executed a power of attorney for the purposes of running his business, while he was away in the United States of America. On learning the facts, he prevailed upon his wife to mend her ways but she, instead, waked out of the house on 11 th July, 1971. This was without his knowledge and consent and was against his wishes. There are also some other allegations pertaining to her wanting him to leave the joint family; as also not co-operating with him and not accep- ting the religious sentiments of the Sikhs by insisting on getting her and her son's hair cut.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.