Sneh Prashar, J. - (1.) BY way of this appeal, Gurcharan Singh -appellant assailed the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, dismissing H.M.A. case No. 39 dated 17.04.2012 filed by him against his wife Sukhjit Kaur -respondent for dissolution of their marriage. The facts garnered from the record are as under: - "The appellant was married to the respondent on 27.09.2006 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies at Muktsar Sahib. After solemnization of the marriage, the parties cohabited as husband and wife at village Sarainaga and a daughter, namely, Ashpreet Kaur was born out of the wedlock, who was presently residing with her mother -respondent. The appellant pleaded that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized in a simple manner; only 10 persons had gone in the Barat; no dowry was given or demanded; and the respondent was brought in her wearing apparels with two suitcases. Whereas, his family gave 3= Tolas of gold and valuable clothes to the respondent which are still with her. His father, who was suffering from Cancer, died just 15 days after the marriage. The allegation of the appellant was that from the very beginning of marriage, the behaviour of the respondent towards him and his family members was rude and insulting. She was short tampered and used to even refuse to prepare or serve food etc. After the death of his father, she pressurized him to live separately from his brother and other family members and when he did not agree she deprived him of his matrimonial pleasures. Due to the turmoil in the family he convened a Panchayat of respectables and as advised by them he constructed a separate room and kitchen in the same house and started living in the same alongwith the respondent. The behaviour of the respondent still did not change. She adopted the habit of leaving the matrimonial home without informing him and would return only on requests made by him. When she was in the 7th month of pregnancy, she was taken to her parental home by her father. While leaving the matrimonial home she was given Rs. 10,000/ - in cash and gifts etc. After the daughter was born, he alongwith his sister, brother -in -law, mother and brother went to the parental home of the respondent to give 'Panjiri', clothes etc. and to bring her back to the matrimonial home but the respondent and her father openly declared that unless his land was transferred in her name, she would not return. They also abused and insulted them. It was further alleged that five months thereafter she alongwith the child came to the matrimonial home at the instance of his brothers and Jagjit Singh, Member Panchayat of Village Sarainaga. Still there was no change in her behaviour and she continued to be abusive and harsh towards him and his family without any rhyme or reason. On 28.01.2007, Jagdish Singh son of Pritam Singh of village Kotkaror, District Moga visited his house but the respondent refused to cook dinner for him and also refused to pick up utensils etc. from the cot and on insistence by him she abused and insulted him in the presence of Jagdish Singh. Similarly, on 29.09.2007, when he and the respondent had gone to the market of Mandi Bariwala, they met Boota Singh son of Kehar Singh in whose presence the respondent asked him to purchase clothes for her and when he expressed his inability to do so because of scarcity of money, she started hurling abuses on him and even tried to slap him in the presence of Boota Singh. On several occasions she treated him in most cruel and inhuman manner. Thereafter, in the month of October, 2007 when he was away to the fields, father of the respondent came and took her with him without his consent. After two days he went to bring her back but he was insulted and the respondent refused to join his conjugal company. A Panchayat was convened but the respondent remained adamant and demanded transfer of land in her name. He filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1955") for restitution of conjugal rights at Shri Muktsar Sahib. The respondent appeared but refused to return to the matrimonial home. She filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as "Cr.P.C.") in which maintenance was allowed to her. He then filed a petition under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act whereas the respondent filed a complaint under Sections 307, 406, 498 -A and 120 -B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as "I.P.C.") against him and his family members which was pending. Alleging that the respondent had treated him with utmost cruelty and had also deserted him without any rhyme or reason, the appellant prayed for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce."
(2.) THE respondent contested the petition. The foremost preliminary objection raised by her was that the instant petition was a counter blast to the complaint under Sections 307, 406, 498 -A and 120 -B of I.P.C. filed by her against the appellant and other members of his family who had since been summoned vide order dated 21.11.2011. She also mentioned a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by her had been accepted and the appellant had been directed to pay maintenance allowance to her and her daughter vide order dated 21.07.2010. Replying para wise, the respondent denied all allegations of the appellant and submitted that although her father had solemnized the marriage with great pomp and show and had given sufficient dowry in the form of clothes, cash and gold, yet the appellant and his parents were not satisfied and they always harassed and maltreated her and demanded additional dowry in the shape of a motorcycle and cash etc. After the birth of the daughter as she was unable to fulfil the demand she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Her father convened Panchayat but to no better result. The allegation of the appellant that she was demanding transfer of land in her name had already been rejected by the Court while deciding her petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 21.07.2010. Submitting that it was the appellant who treated her with cruelty and had deserted her, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition. Appellant filed rejoinder controverting the objections raised by the respondent and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled: - - "(1) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a period exceeding two years immediately prior to filing this petition? OPP. (2) Whether after the solemnization of marriage, the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP (3) Relief."
(3.) BOTH the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions.;