FAO No. M-201 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. M-201 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 01.6.2011 Ramesh Kumar ..... Appellant vs Parveen Kumari ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sushant Batish, Advocate for Mr. R. N. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. M. S. Dhammi, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellant- husband is in appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned court below whereby the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') for divorce, was allowed. Briefly the facts are that the marriage of the parties was solemnised on 27.6.2005 at Rampura, District Bathinda, as per Hindu rites. The admitted position on record is that the parties lived together only for a period of one month. No child was born out of the wedlock. The petition for divorce was filed by the wife on 25.7.2006 on the ground of cruelty. The plea was also sought to be raised by the wife that in fact the dispute between the parties was settled in the panchayat which resulted into divorce by way of mutual consent. The learned court below having accepted the petition filed by the respondent wife, the husband is in appeal before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no material brought on record by the wife to prove the allegation of cruelty except oral evidence. No complaint was ever made to the police. Even if there is mutual settlement in panchayat, the same was never acted upon. There is no evidence on record to show the demand of dowry as the marriage was very simple. However, learned counsel for the appellant, was FAO No. M-201 of 2008 -2- candid in admitting that the appellant at present is unemployed and is merely engaged in household work. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that due to temperamental differences and also the fact that the appellant in the present case was drug addict, who used to take liquor as well, the couple could not live together. The wife spent even a month's time in the matrimonial home with great difficulty. She was regularly beaten up. She was denied the pleasure of matrimonial life. Merely because the complaint was not made to the police as the parties are belonging to lower segment of the society, should not be taken against her. Had the behaviour of the appellant been normal, there was no reason for the respondent wife to have indulged in this litigation. It is very difficult to live in parental home after the marriage. All the dowry articles given in the marriage are still lying with the appellant. The petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the husband was also dismissed in default but was never got restored by him. It shows the mind set of the appellant. In fact, the appellant is a person of criminal nature. He has even been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala, vide judgment dated 7.4.2006, in FIR No. 146 dated 30.11.2001, registered with Police Station Tapa, District Barnala, under Sections 342, 323, 148, 149 IPC. The parties are living separate since July 2005 and there is no chance of their living together now. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The undisputed facts on record are that the parties lived together only for a period of one month after the marriage was solemnised on 27.6.2005. The appellant is unemployed. The petition filed by him under Section 9 of the Act was dismissed in default but he never got it restored. If he was interested in saving the matrimonial ties, he should have taken steps in that regard. The wife in her cross-examination stated that she was beaten up so many times but she always ignored all these attrocities in the hope that the husband will mend his ways. But all her efforts remained futile. FAO No. M-201 of 2008 -3- The wife will not leave the matrimonial home just after one month's marriage unless there are compelling circumstances. It is not easy for any girl to live in her parental home after the marriage. Even if there is no complaint filed by the respondent to the police about her maltreatment, the same cannot be taken against her as many a times on advice, people refrain from indulging in that litigation with the hope that there may be amicable settlement whereas once the criminal process is initiated, it may lead to the point of no return. In our society, no girl would like to live with the stigma of divorcee. After divorce second marriage is also difficult. Nobody would like to go to the court to seek divorce merely for fun. These are hard decisions taken after due deliberations in the family and considering the pros and cons thereof. It is very difficult for the parents to accept that as their endeavour normally is to see that their daughter settles in the matrimonial home, may be even if there are certain differences in the beginning but only if those could be resolved. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find that any error has been committed by the learned court below in accepting the divorce petition filed by the wife. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 01.6.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge