- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 19.9.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (In short "the Act") for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, was dismissed.
(2.) A few facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 15.2.1988 at Ferozepur City as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, the parties cohabited with each other as husband and wife and out of the said wedlock, two male children, namely, Karan Sharma and Arjun Sharma were born. The father of the appellant died in the year 1967 leaving behind two sons and two daughters and his mother brought up the family. From the very beginning, the respondent started pressurizing the appellant to live separate from the joint family. Earlier, the appellant was living with his family in a rented house but from 2002 onwards, they have shifted to House No. 264, Kundan Nagar, Ferozepur City. The respondent doubted about the character of the appellant as well as younger brother's wife who was quite young to him and was just like a daughter. This act and conduct of the respondent also caused harassment and mental torture to the appellant. According to the appellant, from the beginning of the marriage, the respondent never tried to cook meals for any member of the family including the appellant. She never washed the clothes. When the demand of the respondent for a separate house was not fulfilled, she started keeping distance from the appellant and there was no cohabitation between the parties from 2002. The respondent also tried to commit suicide by consuming some pesticide but she was saved. All the acts and conduct of the respondent were informed to her parents a number of times but they instead of making her understand, instigated her for separate mess. She even left the company of the appellant on 18.9.2010 and had not returned to the matrimonial home. The marriage between the parties was a dead marriage for all intents and purposes. Since, the appellant could not condone the act of cruelty of the respondent, he filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for divorce. The said petition was resisted by the respondent by filing a written statement. Besides raising various preliminary objections, it was pleaded that the marriage between the parties took place on 15.2.1989 and not on 15.2.1988 and at the time of filing of the petition, the respondent was residing at Amritsar and not at Gobindgarh as alleged by the appellant. The appellant was working as Superintendent Grade I, in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur and was very proud and adamant nature. She was not allowed to go to the Kitchen for preparation of meals by the mother of the appellant and she was provided food which was left by the family members of the appellant. Even the respondent was turned out from the matrimonial home on 28.9.2010 in three wearing clothes and the appellant never inquired about her whereabouts. In fact, the appellant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of the respondent and on this account they started misbehaving with her and she was not allowed to go to her parents house even during the pleasure or sorrow days. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. The appellant filed rejoinder controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating that made in the petition. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce as prayed for OPP 2. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable OPR 4. Relief.
(3.) The appellant in support of his case examined himself as PW1, Neel Rattan Sharma as PW2, his son Arjun Sharma as PW3 and Manjit Singh as PW4. On the other hand, the respondent rebutted the claim of the appellant by examining herself as RW1 and her uncle Kasturi Lal as RW2.;