G.C. Mital, J. - (1.) On the last date of hearing both the parties had appeared in Court. Efforts for reconciliation were made but none could be brought about. Accordingly the case was posted for hearing on merits.
(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I find that no case has been made out to interfere with the well considered decision of the Court below. The parties were married on 16th Jan., 1979. At the time of marriage the wife was posted as an ad hoc B.Sc. Science Teacher in a Government School in District Ferozepur, about 30 kilometers from the town of Ferozepur. The husband was a mere Graduate and was doing private practice as a Homeopath. His father was an AM.B.B.S. and had retired as a Military Doctor, who had constructed a house at Chandigarh, where his son was also living with him. It is the admitted case of both the sides that the wife did not come to Chandigarh to live in her in-laws' house after three months of her marriage. The wife's case is that the husband used to visit at her residence in District Ferozepur even thereafter for some months.
(3.) On 15th May, 1981 the husband filed the present petition of divorce on the ground of desertion by the wife for a period more than two years. The wife contested the petition and pleaded that her husband and the in-laws had been demanding more dowry, scooter etc., besides wanting that she should get her landed property separated from her sister and mother, to which she had succeeded on her father's death. All this happened soon after the marriage. Before marriage there is a letter of the father of the husband (Exhibit R 12) dated 4th Nov., 1978. This was written to Harbans Lai, husband of the elder sister of the wife. There is no clear-cut-mention in the same about any demands, but some suggestions were made, which according to the writer had created tension in relations and colleagues and he wanted that they should forget about it. Letters Exhibits R3, R7 and R11, written by the husband to the wife, dated 7th Feb., 1979, 4th April, 1979 and 6th April, 1979 clearly go to suggest that the husband was apologising for the acts and conduct of his father, as also his own, and requested that she should try to forget whatever had happened before. Of course in these letters the husband also showed that he had love and affection for her, but these letters clearly go to show that the stand of the wife that soon after the marriage the demands for more dowry, scooter etc. poured in is clearly established. It is true that some other letters brought on record, written by the husband to the wife, also go to show that he wanted her to get herself transferred to a place near Chandigarh, but nowhere has he removed the impression which was created in the mind of the wife, that the husband and his father were after her landed property, besides making unreasonable demands for more and more dowry. If no child had been born out of the wedlock, there could have been another trial for persuading the wife to agree to divorce by mutual consent, but unfortunately a female child was born out of the wedlock within a year of the marriage, and, therefore, she has refused to divorce by mutual consent. Unless a case for divorce under one of the provisions contained in Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is made out, the husband cannot get divorce.;