F.A.O.No.201-M of 2006 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No.201-M of 2006 Date of Decision: May 16, 2008 Randip Kaur ...Appellant VERSUS Mandeep Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Pankaj Sangari, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- per month was granted on 5.2.2008. While adjourning the case, the counsel for the respondent was required to get in touch with the respondent and arrange payment of maintenance pendente lite. When the case was taken up for hearing on 25.4.2008, the counsel for the respondent F.A.O.No.201-M of 2006 : 2 : prayed for time pleading that the respondent was busy in some work. It could not be disclosed as to what work had kept respondent busy. The respondent was seen to be failing to comply with the orders passed by this court. The court observed that such an attitude cannot be accepted. The case was adjourned for today with direction to the respondent to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- for seeking adjournment on flimsy grounds. Today, the counsel for the respondent points out that he has brought Rs.2,000/-, which was directed as costs. He still has not been able to pay the maintenance which is due since February, 2008. It is noticed that the attitude of the respondent is to evade the directions of this court. Since the respondent has failed to comply with the directions of this court, he has lost the right to be heard on merits in this appeal. Accordingly his defence is struck off and the appeal is taken up for hearing on merits. The facts in this case would also reflect the attitude adopted by the respondent. Within about one year of his marriage, he filed this divorce petition on the ground that relations between the husband the wife have become strained due to temperamental differences. Claiming that the marriage has almost broken down, he had filed this application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolving the same on the ground of mutual consent. The matrimonial Court after recording the statements of Randip Kaur and Mandeep Singh granted the decree of divorce. It is noticed that consent of the parties has not been obtained by force, fraud, coercion or undue influence while dissolving this marriage. The wife in her appeal has rather brought out the background how she has been defrauded by the respondent-husband while obtaining her F.A.O.No.201-M of 2006 : 3 : consent and thereafter obtaining decree of divorce. In the grounds of appeal, it is pleaded that the respondent-husband had threatened the appellant either to sign the divorce petition and to make a statement in the court, otherwise he will leave the house and commit suicide. Under such coercion and on account of love for his husband, the appellant-wife had remained silent and had signed the papers for grant of divorce on the ground of mutual consent. The panchayats of both the villages were also arranged where the respondent-husband ultimately had admitted his guilt. He had accordingly agreed to keep the wife. Reference is made to an affidavit dated 22.4.2006, attested by Notary Public and witnessed by Sarpanches of both the villages. The contents of the affidavit have been reproduced in the grounds of appeal, reference to which can be made here in detail. The affidavit reads as under:- “1. That I had brought my wife Randip Kaur to Dhuri on 2.9.2005. I had threatened her in the night that either signed the papers on my asking otherwise I will leave the house. 2. That Randip Kaur loves me very much. She is sincere towards me. Due to my this threat, Randip Kaur had come at Dhuri on 3.9.2005 with me. She had signed the papers, given by me, without reading the same and she, as per my wishes, had also got recorded her statement in the court against the facts and concealing all the circumstances. 3. That neither we have divorced each other nor we have resided separate from each other. We are living as F.A.O.No.201-M of 2006 : 4 : husband and wife since our marriage. 4. That we both are performing our duties of being husband and wife. 5. That on 3.9.2005, case was adjourned for 6 months and in that case, Randip Kaur, as per my wishes, had reiterated the already given false statement while neither any above divorce of ours had taken place nor any difference was there in our nature. 6. That I was thinking for going out of India, in my heart and due to this I had committed above coercion with my wife but I had no intention to commit any coercion. 7. That now I have realized my this mistake. I have also told all this to Panchayat of our village Badrukhan and have also told this thing to my parents and to the parents of girl Randip Singh. 8. That earlier also we had been living as husband and wife and thereafter even now we are residing together as husband and wife. 9. That vide suit No.7 dated 3.9.2005, decided on 5.4.2006, titled as Randip Kaur Versus Mandeep Singh, I had got divorce, on asking of my husband and on the basis of false facts. This divorce is forged and only a paper transaction, which is totally false. 10. That even now we are residing as husband and wife. 11. That today I have got written my above affidavit with my free will and without any force. F.A.O.No.201-M of 2006 : 5 : It is, thus, clear that the consent of the appellant was obtained by force and coercion. She never freely consented to the divorce on the ground of mutual consent. The attitude and conduct of the husband would deserve deprecation. He continues to play hide and sick with law even before this court. His non-appearance to an extent seems to be clearly relatable to his conduct, which was likely to be exposed. Whatever the feeble defence he would have to support the impugned order would totally vanish as his defence would stand struck off and he is not to be heard on merits. His conduct, as such, does not deserve any hearing. Accordingly I would not have any hesitation in allowing this appeal. It is so ordered. The decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent-husband is hereby set-aside. Appeal is allowed. May 16, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE