Sneh Prashar, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Mohinder Pal Singh -appellant assails the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar in H.M. Act case No. 233 dated 27.08.2005, whereby his petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') was dismissed. The relevant facts which need recapitulation are as under: Appellant -Mohinder Pal Singh was married to Ravinder Kaur respondent on 03.12.2000 at Jalandhar as per sikh rites and ceremonies. After the marriage they lived together as husband and wife at Jalandhar and two children namely Jasleen Pal Singh and Komal were born out of the wedlock on 17.09.2001 and 04.07.2003 respectively. The minor children were stated to be living with appellant -Mohinder Pal Singh.
(2.) IT was alleged by the appellant that prior to his marriage with Ravinder Kaur, she was married twice. The factum of two earlier marriages of respondent -Ravinder Kaur was not disclosed to him. He could not trace the details relating to her first marriage and it was not in his knowledge whether the first marriage was legally dissolved or not, but her second marriage was solemnized with Satnam Singh @ Raju. He was informed that the said marriage was legally dissolved but later, he learnt that the marriage with Satnam Singh @ Raju was still subsisting at the time of his marriage with the respondent. The second marriage with Satnam Singh @ Raju was dissolved vide order dated 06.10.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar in a petition filed under Section 13 -B of the Act. The appellant submitted that he had been defrauded by the respondent and her family members. At the time of third marriage of the respondent with him, her both previous spouses were alive and her earlier two marriages had not been legally dissolved. It was further the allegation of the appellant that after marriage with him the behavior of the respondent was irrational and quarrelsome from the very beginning. She was rude towards him and his family members and in a fit of anger, she used to misbehave, break the household articles and tear off the clothes etc. She never bothered for the children and behaved like a mad woman. He learnt later that she was suffering from mental disorder known as Schizophrenia and had been undergoing medical treatment prior to the marriage. He also came to know that the break down of her earlier marriages was responsible for her mental condition. When her behavior became unbearable, he filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act on 15.11.2003. On the other hand, the respondent filed a complaint under section 406/498 -A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against him and his family members, which was registered as FIR No. 452 dated 09.12.2003 at police station Division No. 6, Jalandhar. He and his family members were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. During the course of investigation, he was compelled to compromise against his wishes. Consequent to the compromise the divorce case was withdrawn. Lastly, the appellant submitted that there was still no change in the behavior of the respondent and the children were scared of her. Ultimately, she withdrew from his society and started living with her mother at Phagwara and again filed a false complaint before the Association for Social Health in India Red Cross Bhawan, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar. He was summoned by the society and by the Senior Superintendent of Police, when he appeared on 10.08.2005 he was directed to seek remedy from the Court. With the above pleadings the appellant prayed that his marriage with the respondent be declared as a nullity. The respondent contested the petition. The preliminary objections raised by her were with regard to maintainability of the petition in the present form; cause of action and estoppel etc. She admitted her marriage with the appellant and also birth of two children out of the wedlock. According to her marriage was solemnized with the consent of the appellant and there was no concealment on her part. She denied that she had ever misbehaved with the appellant or his family or had played fraud on them. She alleged that the instant petition was filed by the appellant to save himself from the criminal case. Denying all allegations she submitted that it was the appellant who maltreated her to bring more dowry and also deserted her without any sufficient cause. He wrongly snatched both her minor children and was restraining her from meeting and looking after them.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by the learned trial Court: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to declaration that his marriage with the respondent performed on 03.12.2000 is nullity under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is barred by his own act and conduct from filing this case? OPR. 3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file this case? OPR. 4. Relief.;