D.V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) This first appeal from order arises out of the judgment and decree dated 27-9-1985 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dasuya (with delegated powers of District Judge), whereby he has allowed a petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed by Piara Singh, husband-respondent and granted in his favour and against Sukhwinder Kaur, wife-appellant a decree for judicial separation. In his petition the respondent alleged that he and the appellant were married on 24-5-1981 according to Sikh rites at Patiala. After marriage, they cohabited as husband and wife at village Kandhala Jattan, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, where he was posted as Veterinary doctor. A son Jasprit Singh was born out of the wedlock and he is alive. He alleged that the appellant had treated him with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful and injurious for him to live with her. According to him, since they started their cohabitation in their house at Kandhala Jattan, the appellant was determined and rigid on the point that he should completely follow her commands and dictates. She stopped him from seeing and meeting his parents, brothers, sisters and other relations. She even stopped the entry of these relations of the respondent in their matrimonial home. When any breach or negligence on his part occurred in obeyapce of the above commands of the appellant, she sometimes used to rush to the kitchen saying that she would burn herself and get him put behind the bars. He stated that it was difficult for him to control her at such moments. When he tried to check her physically from pouring kerosene oil on her body, she used to strike her head against the wall or sometimes she would strike hard substance against her head and at other occasions she slapped him. According to the averments of the respondent, he had been facing this cruel treatment at the bands of the appellant for two and half years continuously preceding the presentation of the petition. He has lost his health and peace of mind. The appellant used to threaten him on one pretext or the other that she would either kill herself or the respondent. He had apprehension that she might kill him while asleep or administer him poison in food. He further stated that about 25 days before the filing of the petition, the appellant by use of force and pressure sent him to the house of his sister with the object that be should force his brother-in-law to divorce the respondent's sister. She had threatened that failing this, she would burn and kill herself. He went to the house of his sister to obey the orders of the appellant. He further stated that about 8/10 days earlier to 19-8-1984 the appellant tried to sprinkle kerosene oil on her body. When he intercepted her, she bate him severely by giving slaps and by using one iron pipe This occurrence was seen by Gurmeet Singh the landlord of the house where they were living and one Harbans Singh son of Hazara Singh resident of Ram Pur, who rescued him from the clutches of the appellant. He felt insulted and at one stage he had made a mind to commit suicide in order to get rid of this miserable life. In the meantime by use of good office of the landlord and the village panchayat the respondent was prevailed upon to call appellant's parents from Patiala in order to pat the controversy of rest. Ho further alleged that the appellant used to beat their child in his presence mercilessly in order to mentally torture him. Sometimes she used to read the letters of her friends from Patiala in his presence in order to annoy and provoke him. On 19-8-1984 a meeting of village panchayat was held in the presence of the parties and their respective fathers. A temporary arrangement for separate living of the parties was made by means of a resolution adopted by the panchayat which was signed by the parties and their fathers besides some respectables of the village. On these grounds he prayed for the grant of a decree for judicial separation.
(2.) The appellant opposed the petition by filing her written statement. She denied the allegations made in the petition and contended on the other hand, that it was the respondent, who along with the members of his family mat-treated her. She further stated that she was never treated like a human being by the respondent. He used to beat her while in intoxication. She alleged that she was allowed to meet her parents only when she was required to get something from them as directed by the respondent. She denied the incidents alleged in the petition. She stated that whenever she refused to go to her parents to bring more articles as per respondent's demand, she was threatened to be killed and burnt by him. She further stated that she could not dare to maltreat or beat tier husband. The allegations were false and motivated. She categorically stated that she is always ready to live with the respondent like a good wife bat it is he who does not want to keep her. As regards the meeting of the panchayat on 19-8.1984, she stated that without her knowledge the respondent sent a telegram to h.r father to secure his presence. She alleged that the respondent and his family members are greedy persons. They were not satisfied with the dowry given by her father. The whole of her dowry articles were given in the marriage of the sister of the respondent. He always demanded money and more dowry and complied her to go to her parents. She alleged that a panchayat was arranged by the respondent in connivance with the villagers just to harras her. The panchayat simply asked the respondent to go to Patiala and bring her back with him. All this was aimed at sending her out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter the instant petition was filed. Her father approached the respondent to rehabilitate her. He, however, refused to do so until her father paid to him an amount of Rs. 20,000.00 for the expenditure of her B.Ed. classes and for purchasing another plot at Patiala. The respondent filed replication reiterating his allegations.
(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree for judicial separation on the grounds mentioned in the petition ? O.P.P. 2. Relief.;