R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) SMT . Harpal Kaur was the respondent in the trial Court in the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and she has filed the present appeal which has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.8.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who allowed the petition under Section 13 of the said Act filed by Balbir Singh, husband of the appellant, now respondent in this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Balbir Singh, now respondent and petitioner in the trial Court, filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife Harpal Kaur by inter alia pleading that he was married with Harpal Kaur on 17.11.1987 according to Sikh rites by way of Anand Karj ceremony. After the marriage, the parties resided and cohabited together as husband and wife at village Bhadewal, tehsil and district Ludhiana and out of this wedlock three sons namely Sukhbir Singh, Kulbir Singh and Daljhit Singh were born on 21.8.1988, 8.9.1990 and 17.1.1992. It has been alleged by the husband that the relations between the parties became strained in the year 1990 after the birth of second child. The wife was pressing the husband to settle at Delhi with her parents and give up the company of his parents. The parents of the wife were telling that there were disturbed conditions in Punjab, therefore, it is safer to shift to Delhi. The petitioner-husband has two brothers out of which one is elder to him and married and is residing separately and the other is minor. The mother of the petitioner is 60 years old and his father has already expired. Therefore, it was difficult for the petitioner to shift to Delhi. When he refused to accept the demand of the respondent-wife, she decided to desert him after the birth of third child in the year 1992. The petitioner and his relations made efforts to rehabilitate the respondent. She was brought back to her matrimonial home in the month of March, 1992. Again the respondent-wife started misbehaving and also started maltreatment with the petitioner and his family members. She stopped preparing meals and washing clothes of the petitioner and his family members and started threatening to teach a lesson to them. She even threatened to commit suicide. The message was given to the parents of the respondent about her maltreatment and then she was taken back to Delhi by her mother in June, 1992. In the mother of April, 1995, the respondent-wife and her parents took the local police into confidence and called the petitioner in Police Station, Payal, where he was abused and slapped by the police in the presence of the respondent and her mother and he was directed to live with the petitioner where she likes and consequently the petitioner and respondent lived together up to June, 1995 when she was taken back by her mother and mother's sister Gurjit Kaur to Delhi. On 23.8.1995 in Police Station, Payal it was settled that the petitioner will bring back the respondent in the month of February, 1996 to any other place than village Bhadewal as the respondent-wife was not ready to reside in the village. The parties were given six months time to remove the misunderstandings and to develop good relations and to arrange residence. But in the meanwhile, on 19.11.1995 the petitioner-husband was rounded by Amarjit Singh, DSP, Payal at the instance of respondent and the petitioner was directed to come to Police Station, Payal along with the three children. The petitioner was surprised to see the respondent, her mother and mother's sister Gurjit Kaur, Mohinder Singh, husband of Sukhwant Kaur, another sister of the mother of respondent, in Police Station, Payal. DSP Amarjit Singh gave beatings to the petitioner in the presence of respondent and other relatives and he was also threatened that if he tried to shirk from signing, he will remain in lock-up and thus his signatures were obtained on the compromise dated 19.11.1995 with the force of the police. Seeing the attitude of the respondent on 19.11.1995, the petitioner instituted a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 29.11.1995 which was entrusted to the Court of Shri J.S. Korey, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana as the petitioner was apprehensive that the respondent will again cause beating and maltreatment with him at the hands of the police. During the pendency of the said petition the respondent instituted a petition under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code at Delhi, which is still pending and she also filed complaints against him before the Crime Cell (Women) South Motibag, Nanakpura, New Delhi in which he was summoned in the month of January, 1996. Again in the month of April, 1996, the petitioner and his brother were summoned by the Superintendent of Police (HQ), Khanna in a complaint filed by the respondent. The respondent had been filing false complaints one after the other against the petitioner and his family members levelling false allegations upon which he was harassed and tortured by the police. She also lodged a complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC against him, his brothers and their wives and other family members upon which FIR No. 115 of 1996 was registered at Police Station Inderpuri, Delhi. The petitioner was arrested by the police and he remained under the police remand as well as in judicial custody. The respondent has treated him and his family members with cruelty and has tortured them physically and mentally and has created such atmosphere in which it is quite impossible for the petitioner to live with the respondent. Therefore, on these allegations the petitioner-husband made a prayer for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent-wife, who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. She took preliminary objections such as that the petition was not legally maintainable, that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands and has given a tainted version of the matter; that the respondent was always ready and willing to join the society of the petitioner along with the children but the petitioner was evading his liability towards the respondent and the children. The respondent also pleaded that she had been tolerating the maltreatment at the hands of the petitioner with the hope that he will mend his ways. She was forced to leave the house in compelling circumstances in June, 1993 when she was on family way and sons namely Kulbir Singh and Daljit Singh were also sent with her and the eldest son namely Sukhbir Singh is not being properly looked after by the petitioner. She was not allowed to see Sukhbir Singh much against the wishes of her son and the conduct of the petitioner is such which disentitles him to seek the decree of divorce. It was further pleaded by the respondent that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the said petition was not even verified properly. On merits, it was submitted by the respondent that she never pressed the petitioner to settle at Delhi with her parents. It was denied by the respondent that after the birth of third child in the year 1992, she did not return to the matrimonial house. She has always been ready and willing to join the company of the petitioner despite maltreatment at his hands and tolerated with the hope that better sense will prevail upon the petitioner. It was denied that the petitioner and his relatives made any effort to reconcile their differences. It was also pleaded that the petitioner admitted his guilt and assured that he will treat the petitioner with respect, love and affection. She never threatened the petitioner or his family members and she never tried to commit suicide. She also denied the allegations that her parents took the assistance of local police or that the petitioner was called in the police station or that the petitioner was abused or slapped in her presence and her family members with the intervention of the respectables the petitioner agreed to keep the respondent and during the period they lived together, the behaviour of the petitioner continued to be quite rigid and harsh and he continued maltreating the respondent. It was also denied by the respondent that settlement was effected under the pressure of police, rather it was the petitioner who had influenced the police of Police Station, Payal and got the matter compromised. They caused the injuries to the respondent and she was medically examined in Civil Hospital, Khanna and medical report was prepared by attending doctor and it was on the intervention of the petitioner that respondent and her relations were forced to effect a compromise. It was denied that on 19.11.1995, the petitioner was rounded up by Amarjit Singh, DSP at the instance of the respondent, or that the said DSP gave beatings to the petitioner, or that the petitioner signed some compromise under pressure. The petitioner himself compromised the matter of his own free will. It was denied that the DSP took into custody the younger sons from the petitioner and handed over their custody to the respondent. The petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the petitioner but the same was dismissed as withdrawn and the present petition under Section 13 of the said Act was filed. The respondent admitted that she filed a petition under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code and a complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Delhi. By denying other allegations, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
(3.) THE husband filed a re-joinder against the written statement in which he reiterated his allegations made in the petition by denying those of the written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty ? OPA 2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years preceding the presentation of the petition ? OPA 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree prayed for ? OPA 4. Relief." ;