SHAM SUNDER, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.4.2002 rendered by the court of Shri B.C. Rajput, the then District Judge, Bathinda vide which the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage filed by Sham Lal, petitioner, was accepted.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Sham Lal, respondent-husband was married on 2.10.1998 to Usha Rani, appellant-wife, according to Hindu Rites and Rituals at Bathinda. After the solemnization of the marriage, Usha Rani started residing with her husband. The parties cohabited with each other. It was stated that the behaviour and attitude of Usha Rani was very aggressive towards Sham Lal and his family members. She used to insult Sham Lal in the presence of her family members. She was very in-cooperative. She tried to dominate the petitioner, as well as his family members. She used to taunt the petitioner that he was inferior to her as she was earning more salary than him. However, the petitioner continued tolerating such cruel comments for the sake of harmony in the matrimonial life. She never respected the parents of the petitioner. The petitioner requested her several times to change her behaviour and attitude but she refused to do so. Usha Rani, who was working as Postal Assistant in City Post Office, Bathinda used to spend her break hours from 11.00 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. somewhere outside her matrimonial home and the Post Office. She used to visit her parental house, as well as the houses of her friends during the break period, without informing the petitioner, as well as his family members. It was further stated that the parents of the wife, used to interfere in the lives of the parties. The wife used to hand over her entire salary to her parents, which was quite against the moral ethics. When she was asked by the petitioner not to do so, she threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. She was never satisfied with the job of the petitioner, and used to torture him. Aggrieved by the behaviour and attitude of Usha Rani, Sham Lal moved an application to Mahila Wing for settlement of his matrimonial problem. Thereafter, Usha Rani moved a false application to the police under Sections 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that Sham Lal, her husband and his family members were demanding dowry articles, from her, and her parents. She also levelled certain false allegations, against Sham Lal and his family members. A compromise was effected between the parties on 16.8.1999. The complaint, so made, by Usha Rani was withdrawn. However, under the garb of that compromise, she got transferred the Maruti Car bearing No. PB-05F/7394, in her name illegally, which was purchased by the father of Sham Lal. Sham Lal also lost his job because of the complaint filed by Usha Rani. Thereafter, he had to stay at home for a period of about seven months. Usha Rani gave an affidavit stating that she would reside separately in upper portion of the house of her husband and would respect him and his family members. The parties separated from the joint family and started residing, in upper portion of the house. Even thereafter, the behaviour of Usha Rani did not change. She became more cruel and abusive towards the petitioner. The petitioner joined the Company, namely, LIFE in which he was working as Medical Representative at Bathinda. The respondent and her family members pressurised the petitioner to move from his parental house to some other place. Under that pressure, the petitioner left the job with LIFE Company and joined Camlin Company, which was having its office at Karnal. Thereafter, the parties settled at Karnal. A daughter was born out of the wed-lock in the year 2000, but the behaviour and attitude of the respondent, did not change even after the birth of female child. The respondent used to torture her daughter in order to mentally harass the petitioner. She was not taking care of the daughter. The petitioner tried to prevail upon Usha Rani but she did not change her attitude. She was not in the habit of serving food to the petitioner. It was further stated that, on the asking of her parents, she left the matrimonial home on 10.9.2000, without the consent of the petitioner. She also took all Istri Dhan, with her, at the time of leaving the house of the petitioner. The petitioner and his family members tried a number of time to prevail upon Usha Rani, to come and live with them, but she was not ready. It was further stated that the respondent treated the petitioner with utmost cruelty, and deserted him. Accordingly, a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed, in the Court of the District Judge, Karnal, but the same was transferred to the Court of District Judge, Bathinda, by this Court. The respondent, namely, Usha Rani put in appearance and filed written statement, wherein, she took up various objections, and contested the petition. It was pleaded that the petitioner had no locus standi or cause of action to file the petition. The marriage between the parties was admitted. Birth of a female child, was also admitted. It was denied that Usha Rani ever treated the petitioner and his family members with cruelty. It was also denied that she ever abused the petitioner and his family members. It was also denied that the behaviour and attitude of respondent towards the petitioner and his family members was cruel. On the other hand, it was stated that she always respected the petitioner and his family members and remained with them, as a dutiful wife of the petitioner. It was further stated that soon after the marriage, the petitioner, his parents and other family members started maltreating her, on the ground, that she had brought insufficient dowry. It was further stated that the parents of the respondent spent Rs. 7,65,000/- on her marriage and dowry articles/Istri Dhan of the respondent. Even then the petitioner and his parents were not satisfied. A demand of Rs. One lac, in cash, as additional dowry was raised. The petitioner and his family members, used to beat the respondent mercilessly, and held out threats to kill her. It was denied by the respondent, that she ever claimed that she was earning more salary than the petitioner. The petitioner used to beat the respondent on petty matters. The petitioner was not working and he used to take the salary of the respondent from her. He was addicted to liquor and used to spend the salary of the respondent, in consuming liquor. It was denied that the respondent ever compelled the petitioner to live separately, from his parents. It was denied that the respondent ever visited her parental house or the house of any of her friends during break hours, or without informing the petitioner. It was further stated that the cruelty meted out to the respondent at the hands of the petitioner and his family members was tolerated by her with the hope that better sense may prevail upon them. The respondent was turned out of her matrimonial home in three wearing clothes, after giving her severe beatings. The entire dowry articles were kept by the petitioner and his family members. The parents of the respondent gave a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, in cash, to the petitioner, and his parents to purchase a Maruti Car. Maruti Car No. PB-05F/7394 was purchased by the father of the respondent, in the name of one Labh Singh. The respondent came to her parental house and narrated the entire story to her parents. On 16.8.1999, Vinod Kumar brother of the respondent, along with Vijay Kumar son of Mithu Ram and Balour Chand son of Bishan Dass, went to the house of her in-laws and requested the petitioner and his family members not to mal-treat the respondent. They assured that they would keep her nicely. They also promised to get the car transferred, in the name of the respondent, but even then the behaviour of the petitioner and his family members remained cruel. It was further stated that the respondent was satisfied with the job of the petitioner. It was further stated that when the respondent was compelled by the circumstances, she got registered a case under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner, and his family members. It was denied that the car, in question, was purchased by the father of the petitioner, from his own funds. It was further stated that a suit was filed by the father of the petitioner, regarding the said car and an application for injunction moved therein, was dismissed. It was denied that the respondent ever gave an affidavit, that she would reside separately, in the upper portion of the house of the father of the petitioner. She never pressurised the petitioner to move out of his parental home. It was further stated that the petitioner with mala fide intention, took the respondent, to Karnal, by saying that he got some better job there. He did not do any work there, and used to beat the respondent. He also tried to kill her. The petitioner then brought the respondent to Bathinda and again started maltreating her. Ultimately, she was turned out of her matrimonial home, by the petitioner, and his parents, as she could not arrange to bring Rs. one lac, demanded as additional dowry. It was denied that the respondent ever gave beating to her female daughter. On the other hand, it was stated by the respondent, that the petitioner and his family members used to taunt the respondent, by asking that she was unable to give birth to a male child, though they wanted him. It was denied that the parents of the respondent ever interfered into the family life of the parties. The remaining allegations were also denied being wrong. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck : i) Whether the respondent committed such acts of cruelty as alleged in the petition ? OPP ii) Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged in paras No. 1 and 2 of the preliminary objection of the reply ? OPR iii) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of decree of divorce ? OPP
(3.) THE petitioner examined Kulwant Rai (PW1), Head Constable Dalbir Singh (PW2), Jaspal Singh (PW3), Amarjit Singh (PW4), Ram Partap (PW5) and he, himself appeared in the witness box as PW6.;