IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. M-372 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: September 01, 2011 Kuljit Kaur .. Appellant Vs. Inderjit Singh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Having failed to seek dissolution of marriage from the trial court, the appellant- Kuljit Kaur has come up in appeal. The marriage between Kuljit Kaur - appellant (herein referred as, 'the appellant') was solemnized with Inderjit Singh - respondent (herein referred as, 'the respondent') on 1.12.1996 according to Sikh Rites at Jalandhar. Out of the wedlock, a female child namely Republin was born on 26.1.2000. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. However, the resondent started harassing and maltreating the appellant for bringing less dowry. He has been demanding `1,00,000/-, however, a sum of `50,000/- was given to the respondent husband. Instead of mending his behaviour towards the appellant, the respondent had further raised demand of `2,00,000/-. When the appellant showed her inability to bring such a huge amount from her parents, she was given severe beatings and turned out of the matrimonial house. Despite number of panchayats convened to rehabilitate the appellant, the respondent refused to do so and demanded `2,00,000/- and termed it as condition precedent for her rehabilitation in the house. Since then, she is living separately. Thus, the appellant has accused the respondent for cruelty and desertion. In reply submitted by the respondent, he has denied all the allegations and submitted that the appellant herself had left him and does not want to stay with him at Amritsar and pressing him to shift to Jalandhar for living in her house as Ghar Jawai. She moved number of false and F.A.O. No. M-372 of 2010 (O&M) -2- *** frivolous complaints in Women Cell, Jalandhar and flatly refused to join his company. The trial court, vide order dated 2.6.2009, directed the respondent to pay a sum of `15000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the appellant-wife, `1000/- as maintenance payable to the minor child and `2000/- as litigation expenses. However, failing to pay such amount, the trial court had struck off his defence on 18.8.2009. The appellant in support of her allegations examined herself as PW-1, Kuldip Singh (PW2), Capt. Harbhajan Singh (PW3) and closed the evidence. The trial court while finding that there is no evidence of cruelty or desertion, dismissed the petition. Arguments heard. Record perused. On scrutiny of the record it transpires that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 1.12.1996. There is un-rebutted evidence of the appellant that earlier the respondent has been demanding `1,00,000/-, however, parents of the appellant gave `50,000/- to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent raised demand of `2,00,000/- as he wanted to go abroad. He was further threatening that she would not allow her to live in the house unless his demands are met with. The appellant was turned out of the house in the year 2008 after giving beatings. The negligent conduct of the appellant was to such an extent that he never bothered to maintain her and the minor child. Even after the maintenance was awarded by the trial court, he refused to pay the same, resultantly his defence was struck off. The respondent never condoned the act of cruelty since June, 2008 when she was given severe beatings and turned out of the matrimonial house. It is also in evidence that despite panchayat was convened, the efforts for reconciliation remained fruitless. Now the appellant is residing separately for the last more than 3 years. The trial court has observed that no medical record has been produced in order to prove the act of cruelty and maltreatment, but these observations appear to be flimsy as the matrimonial disputes when are at very initial stage, are not exposed to the public with the hope that the matrimonial ties may not come to an end and feud may not be F.A.O. No. M-372 of 2010 (O&M) -3- *** multiplied. Ultimately, when the matter is not resolved within the four walls of house and no such hope is left, the dispute comes out in the streets. In this case, the appellant having fed up with the cruel behaviour of the respondent had to take up the matter to the Women Cell, Jalandhar. Even thereafter, the respondent remained silent and did not come to the appellant to settle the matrimonial ties. Mere offer of the respondent in the court that he is ready to take the appellant, is immaterial as some times, such offer is made just to get rid of the litigation, however, the animus disrandy on the part of the accused to beat her and not to rehabilitate her stands proved by the un- rebutted evidence led by the appellant. Even the fact that the respondent did not even bother to pay maintenance as awarded by the trial court and preferred to stay away, also proves his act of desertion. Even otherwise, no evidence has been led by the respondent that since June, 2008, till the filing of the petition or thereafter made any effort to rehabilitate her. In similar circumstances of the case, this court vide judgment delivered in case Surjit Kaur vs. Amarjit Singh 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 787 observed as under :- “11. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in spite of the order having been passed, the respondent/husband has not paid the maintenance pendente lite, or the litigation expenses as ordered by this court on 12.3.1998. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, is that the defence of the respondent/husband is liable to be struck off, on account of non-payment of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. 12. No body has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent to controvert the stand taken by the appellant. Resultantly, the defence of the respondent/husband is ordered to be struck off for non-payment of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. 13. In view of the striking off defence of the respondent/husband this appeal is allowed. The petition filed by the appellant for grant of divorce under section 13 of the Act is allowed but with no order as to costs.” F.A.O. No. M-372 of 2010 (O&M) -4- *** Similarly, in the instant case, the trial court granted maintenance pendente lite and the litigation expenses vide order dated 2.6.2009, but the respondent did not bother to honour the order but had the courage to stay away from the trial. Similarly, he having failed to rebut the evidence led by the appellant goes a long way to establish the desertion on the part of the accused. At the same time, the appellant has duly established on the record that the respondent had treated her with cruelty and deserted her without any reasonable cause or excuses, therefore, the trial court took a wrong view of the matter and erred in dismissing the petition. Resultantly, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the decree for dissolution of marriage is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent with costs. September 01, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge