- (1.) Smt. Parmila Devi-appellant filed this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.04.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), vide which, the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), of Amarjit Singh-respondent No. 1 was allowed and a decree of divorce dissolving their marriage was passed. The facts extracted from the record are as under: The first marriage of Amarjit Singh-respondent No. 1 was solemnized with one Ritu and out of their wedlock two children were born. Unfortunately, Ritu died in a vehicular accident, leaving behind two children namely son Mandeep Singh and daughter Sandeep Kaur aged 10 years and 8 years respectively. On 12.02.2002, Amarjit Singh-respondent contracted second marriage with appellant Parmila Devi. It was a simple marriage performed by Vishwkarma Ramgarhia Welfare Society, Kurali, District Mohali in a common marriage ritual. Amarjit Singh alleged that prior to marriage, Parmila Devi assured that she will take care of his children as her own. But soon after marriage he found that when he used to be away on duty and the children used to come back home from the school, Parmila Devi would invariably beat them and force them to do household work. In the month of March, 2003, he had taken his parents to a doctor for check up and when he came back, he was informed by the children that some person was in the bed room of Parmila Devi and the door was locked from inside. On being confronted, she replied that she was not happy with the marriage. It was further pleaded by Amarjit Singh that Parmila Devi was in the habit of leaving the house without his consent. Though he tried to maintain peace and harmony, her behavior was always arrogant and irresponsible. A false and frivolous complaint was filed by her before Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, however, the matter was compromised and she was advised to maintain peace and harmony. Thereafter, in June, 2007, Parmila Devi left the matrimonial home taking away with her all gold and silver ornaments etc. Amarjit Singh alleged that he tried to bring her back through Panchayat but she flatly refused to return. In the month of June, 2008, she filed a petition for dissolution of marriage but that was dismissed in default. On 04.12.2009, he was informed by Joginder Singh son of Naghaia Singh, who mediated their marriage, that he had seen Parmila Devi in a compromising position with Gurinder Singh son of Hakit Singh, resident of Village Kansala, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali in a public park at Kharar. When he contacted Parmila Devi, she openly declared that she was cohabiting with Gurinder Singh, who is of her age. Submitting that the appellant was living in adultery with Gurinder Singh, Amarjit Singh prayed for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant by a decree of divorce.
(2.) Appellant-Parmila Devi contested the petition. Gurinder Singh (respondent No. 2) despite due service, chose not to appear and was proceeded against ex parte. In the written statement filed by the appellant she pleaded that the factum of first marriage of Amarjit Singh with Ritu and birth of two children out of their wedlock was concealed from her. Amarjit Singh also concealed from her that he had undergone a family planning operation. Had the said facts been told to her she would not have consented to the marriage with Amarjit Singh. Further, the appellant admitted that she had filed a petition for dissolution of their marriage on 14.06.2008, which was dismissed in default but, she alleged that she had moved an application for restoration of the same. Her other allegations were that she was being harassed and maltreated by Amarjit Singh because he and his mother were not happy with the dowry given by her parents and they demanded additional dowry in the shape of motorcycle. In the second week of April, 2003, she was sent to her parental home to bring a motorcycle. In the last week of May, 2004, she filed a complaint before Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar which resulted into compromise on 02.04.2004 and she returned to her matrimonial home. However, there was no improvement in the behavior of her husband Amarjit Singh and his family members. They persisted their demand for a motorcycle. In the month of November, 2004, she was kept hungry and subjected to cruelty. Appellant further pleaded that in January, 2006, she arranged Rs. 15,000/- and gave to respondent-Amarjit Singh for purchase of a motorcycle. Yet on 06.12.2007, she was given severe beatings. In April, 2008, her father-Amir Chand along with other respectables came to her matrimonial home and requested Amarjit Singh and his family to keep her nicely but they again raised a demand for motorcycle and started abusing her and her father. So much so, that Amarjit Singh gave a fist blow to her father, when she demanded back her dowry articles. They refused to return the same and threw her out of the matrimonial home and threatened that they will never allow her to return to their house unless their demand for motorcycle was fulfilled. Ever since then, she was residing with her paralyzed mother as her father died on 31.05.2010. Respondent No. 1 Amarjit Singh filed a rejoinder denying the averments of the appellant.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties following issues were settled by learned trial court: 1. Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the petition is not maintain-able? OPR. 3. Relief. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. Respondent-Amarjit Singh stepped into the witness box as P.W.-2 and reiterated on oath his allegation against the appellant. He also examined Joginder Singh mediator as P.W.-1. Despite opportunities availed the appellant could neither cross-examine Amarjit Singh and his witness nor could lead any evidence herself. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, learned trial court held that Amarjit Singh-respondent husband had been treated with cruelty by the appellant-wife and decided issue No. 1 in his favour. For want of evidence of the appellant, Issue No. 2 was decided against her and the petition was allowed.;