SHAM SUNDER,J - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment by the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the petition order Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the appellant-petitioner, for dissolution of marriage was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that on 5.8.1984, the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Chandigarh, according to Anand Karaz ceremony. The parties cohabited, as husband and wife. From this wedlock one child namely Prabh Kiran Singh was born on 5.11.1986. At the time of marriage, the respondent was in service. After her transfer from Panchmari (M.P.) where the respondent was earlier posted, to Chandigarh she started residing at Mohali with her parents because both her brothers namely Amarjit Singh and Jaspal Singh were employed and residing outside Chandigarh/Mohali. The mother of the respondent was a handicapped lady. Under these circumstances, the respondent insisted upon the petitioner, to live with her, at Mohali, in the house of her mother, so that they may be able to look after her. The appellant-petitioner however, did not accede to this demand of the respondent. The petitioner, at that time, was residing at Faridkot. He asked the respondent to leave her job and live with him at Faridkot. He was in a position to maintain her, as well as the child. He also told her that, in case, both of them lived together they could look after the child in a proper manner. The respondent, however, did not give heed to the request of the petitioner. On the other hand, she insisted upon him, to live with her, in the house of her parents, at Mohali. It was further stated that the respondent most of the time, used to reside at Mohali, with her parents. She rarely visited Faridkot. In vacations, she pressed the petitioner that he should join her in the house of her parents, but he again did not care. When the petitioner flatly refused the demand of the respondent, to live with her parents, at Mohali, he left the society of the petitioner, with a threat, that she would never come back to join him at Faridkot. As she was residing with her parents, at that time, she also took away with her the minor child. The petitioner waited for some time that the respondent would come and join him at Faridkot, but she did not come. After about a month, the petitioner went to Mohali to bring back the respondent-wife, but she flatly refused to join his society. Again after two months, the Panchayat consisting of the petitioner, his father, Gurdeep Singh and Pala Singh s/o Kundan Singh and Manjit Singh s/o Jawala Singh went to the house of her parents. The Panchayat asked the respondent to accompany the petitioner, but she refused to accompany him. It was further stated that the respondent deserted the petitioner continuously since December, 1989, with an intention to put an end to the matrimonial ties, permanently. Ultimately, the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (amended up to date) was filed by the petitioner, in the Court of District Judge, Faridkot. It was, later on, transferred by this Court, to the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh. The respondent, put in appearance, and filed written statement. It was pleaded that the petition had been filed after an undue delay, which remained un-explained, and, as such, was liable to be dismissed. The marriage between the parties was also admitted. It was also admitted that the parties cohabited as husband and wife. The birth of a child namely Prabh Kiran Singh, from this wedlock, was also admitted. It was stated that the respondent was working as Post Graduate Teacher, in Central School and was posted at Panchmari (M.P.) at the time of her marriage. She was transferred to Chandigarh on 5.9.1988. It was further stated that before the marriage, the father of the petitioner, namely Gurdeep Singh, represented to the father of the respondent, that the petitioner had through-out studied at Dehradun, and his academic career was very bright. He also represented that he was a very bright and pushing Advocate, in District Courts, at Faridkot. In another letter, the father of the petitioner, represented to the father of the respondent, that they had no demand, except the marriage of the respondent. The matrimonial ties, between the parties, were finalized through correspondence. It was further stated that Amarjeet Singh, brother of the respondent was/is at Chandigarh. The other brother of the respondent namely Jaswant Singh, an Officer in the Air Force, no doubt, was posted outside Chandigarh. It was further stated that the mother of the respondent, was not a handicapped lady. She, however, got her leg fractured, but, otherwise, she was an able-bodied lady. The father of the respondent retired from Defence Forces, and was a healthy person. It was denied that the respondent insisted upon the appellant-petitioner, to settle at Chandigarh, to look after her parents. It was further stated that after the marriage which was finalized, through correspondence, the respondent, on her first visit, to Faridkot, came to know, that the petitioner was not a practicing lawyer, and was dependant on his parents, who were owning 15 acres of land, and not 50 acres, as represented. The respondent further came to know that the petitioner had not through-out studied at Dehradun as represented by his father, before the marriage. On coming to know of all this, the respondent felt very much depressed. The petitioner and his parents instead of realizing their fault, regarding the misrepresentations, gave a very severe blow to the respondent, by openly expressing, that her parents had not given cash or dowry, in the marriage, and had thrown her out of their home, as a dirt. On 7.8.1984, the petitioner, his father Gurdeep Singh, his brother Dr. Harcharan Singh, his wife, Surjit Kaur and petitioner's maternal aunt, Mohinder Kaur, along with the respondent, came to the house of her parents, at Mohali. It was further stated that before the respondent could complain to her parents, with regard to the misrepresentations of the father of the petitioner, which she came to know, on her first visit to Faridkot, the father of the petitioner, told the father of the respondent, that they were discarding their daughter, as she had challenged his property. They further stated that, at the time of marriage, the father of the respondent had not given anything in the dowry. These persons showed open dissatisfaction with the dowry, given to the respondent, in the marriage. After some discussion, the matter was compromised, and they took the respondent to Faridkot on 8.8.1984. It was further stated that even thereafter she was always harassed and taunted for not bringing dowry. Threat of divorce was hurled by the petitioner, in the month of August, 1984, itself. The respondent was visiting Faridkot till October, 1985. Thereafter, she did not go to Faridkot, on account of the aforesaid reasons. It was further stated that the respondent was always keen to join the petitioner, at Faridkot, but he was never willing to take her along with him, even in the vacations, in her School, and had been avoiding to take her, on different excuses. Sometimes, he used to tell that he had no place of abode and he could not take her. On other occasions, he was telling her, that they were in the process of shifting to Chandigarh, and buying a house. It was denied that the respondent visited Faridkot, in the month of December, 1989. It was denied that the respondent insisted upon the petitioner that he should live with her (respondent) at Mohali, in the house of her parents. It was further stated that in the month of April 1987, the petitioner along with his father, his brother and his brother in-law came to Chandigarh, and demanded cash from the father of the respondent, and threatened him, that if they did not give sufficient cash, then, bad consequences would follow, and she would be divorced. In April, 1989, the petitioner and his brother came to the School of the respondent, at Chandigarh, and asked her, to give him divorce. She told that she was not interested in divorce. It was further stated that ever since 1992, the respondent had not seen the petitioner, except in the Court on 28.3.1995. It was further stated that the respondent was always ready and willing to join the petitioner, at Faridkot, after getting herself transferred, but he was not interested to take her along with him. It was denied that the respondent deserted the petitioner, for a continuous period of two years, immediately preceding the filing of the petition, with an intention, to put an end to the matrimonial ties. On the other hand, it was stated that it was the petitioner who deserted the respondent, without any h sufficient cause.
(3.) IN the replication, filed by the petitioner, she reasserted all the averments, contained in the petition, and controverted those, contained in the written statement :;