FAO No.23-M of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.23-M of 2002 Date of Decision. 08.12.2010 Kulwant Singh son of Sh. Santokh Singh r/o Basti Ibrahim Khan, P.O. Mand, Tehsil and District Jalandhar ......Appellant Versus Mrs. Baljit Kaur wife of S. Kulwant Singh daughter of S. Bhan Singh, Social Study Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School Khadur Sahib, District Amritsar ......Respondent Present: Mr. Mahipal, Advocate for Mr. S.C. Kapoor, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The appeal is at the instance of the husband in a matrimonial proceeding whose petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed. The contention of the husband was that the marriage had taken place according to the Hindu rites on 14.04.1986 and the parties cohabited as husband and wife at Amritsar and at Basti Ibrahim Khan, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. There was an averment in the petition that there had been no issue till the marriage and the marriage was never harmonious. The marriage went sour on account of the fact that the wife, who was relatively better qualified in education and who had also secured a job always taunted the husband and was treating him FAO No.23-M of 2002 -2- with cruelty. The particular incident that was spoken to by the husband as giving room for a ground of divorce was the wife attempted to sprinkle kerosene on her and attempted a suicide. It was also contended that the family members tried their best to reconcile the differences between the husband and wife but they are not successful. It is also alleged by the husband that the wife had dragged the petitioner and his parents to the women cell at Tarn Taran and caused them immense hardship by questioning them as though they were criminals. This, according to the husband, was a further incident of cruelty. The petitioner would contend that she had left the matrimonial home in the year 1994 and she has been residing at parental home. She had also removed all the moveables from out of the house expressing her intention to sequester all matrimonial ties with the husband. The husband would, therefore, contend that the wife was also guilty of desertion. 2. The wife had denied all these allegations and contended that the problem had been only because there was no issue till the marriage and the parents of the husband were always making attempt to secure another wife for him. The petitioner and the respondent supported their respective contentions by examination of witnesses. PW-1 Jagir Singh had spoken to the effect that in the year 1993, the petitioner and his father had gone to the house of the wife and the attempt by them was to secure a conciliation between parties. The wife herself while examining as RW-2 would give evidence to the effect that in the year 1997, she had filed an application before the women cell at Tarn Taran so that the petitioner may rehabilitate her in his house. She stated that her attempt was not to harass the FAO No.23-M of 2002 -3- husband or give a complaint against him for any matrimonial misconduct but it was only with the intention to resume matrimonial company with her husband. She had also given evidence through Gurmukh Singh, RW1 an ex-Sarpanch in village who said that he knew the parties and had specifically stated that in the year 1993, the husband and his father Santokh Singh were saying that there was no child to the wedlock and that they were contemplating to marry him off to another person after dissolving the marriage with the respondent. 3. The trial Court examined the contention for both parties and found that there had been no truth in the contention of the petitioner that there was any cruelty on the part of the wife and it had also gone on to observe that the differences had arisen only on account of the fact that the wife did not conceive. The trial Court had also found that she had expressed a desire to resume company with the husband and even her application before women cell at Tarn Taran was only to secure herself the company of the husband. Consequently, the Court found that there was no proof for the allegation that wife was guilty of desertion. 4. I find the judgment of the trial Court to be balanced and is taken note of the evidence tendered by both parties. I am in full agreement with the ultimate decision taken by the trial Court and I find no scope for interference. The appeal filed by the husband has consequently dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 08, 2010 Pankaj*