Kamal vs Karambir on 26 February, 2018


(208) FAO-M-216-2014
Decided on: February 26, 2018.

…. Appellant

….. Respondent


Present: Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.


Appellant-wife Kamal had filed a petition under Section 13 of

the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage against the

respondent-husband. The petition for divorce was dismissed vide impugned

judgment and decree dated 07.11.2013.

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-wife has preferred

the present appeal before this Court along with application under Section 24

of the Hindu Marriage Act. Application under Section 24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act had been allowed vide order dated 31.10.2017.

The respondent-husband has not paid any amount. Counsel for

the respondent and respondent-husband present in person have been given

an opportunity to pay the arrears of maintenance pendente lite pursuant to

the order dated 31.10.2017, which arrears, as per counsel for the appellant,

are more than Rs.1,60,000/-.

Respondent-husband Karambir, present in the Court, has made

a statement that he does not want to pay any maintenance pendente lite to

the appellant-wife.

1 of 4
11-03-2018 00:25:02 :::
FAO-M-216-2014 -2-

In view of above said circumstances, we are of the opinion that

appeal being continuation of the original petition, the respondent having

refused to pay any maintenance pendente lite, his defence is liable to be

struck off throughout.

The appeal has been taken up for consideration on merits.

The claim of the appellant-wife for divorce that she was

married to the respondent on 26.04.1999 and that after the marriage they

lived together and out of the wedlock a daughter named Sweety was born on

21.04.2002. On 25.04.1999, a day prior to the marriage of the parties,

marriage of the brothers of appellant, namely Ram Mehar and Hari Pal was

solemnised with two younger sisters of the respondent-husband namely

Mahesho and Manju respectively. Parties stayed happily for a period of two

years but one Ram Narain had started intervening the married life of the

brother of the appellant, Hari Pal and Manju. Said Ram Narain is nephew

of the appellant’s village as his mother belonged to the appellant’s village.

Ram Narain started persuading the wife of Hari Pal, namely Manju by

visiting her house as he was residing in the same area. The appellant’s

brother Hari Pal came to know about the bad intention and the evil design of

said Ram Narain as he wanted to get hold of the appellant’s brother wife

namely Manju. On account of above said dispute, Ram Narain and Surat

Singh collided with each other and started visiting the house of father-in-

law of the appellant in his village at Kurana. They connived with the

parents-in-law of the appellant and convinced them that they had committed

a mistake by solemnising the marriage of his two daughters in the house of

the appellant as the appellant and her family did not hold any respect in the

society and in the village. Appellant has also referred to an incident of

2 of 4
11-03-2018 00:25:04 :::
FAO-M-216-2014 -3-

11.05.2002 when her father and uncle etc. had visited her on the occasion of

birth of the female child namely Sweety. When the appellant’s father and

above said persons were returning, the appellant insisted them to take her

with them as she was given beating and turned out of the matrimonial home

by retaining all the jewellery articles of Istridhan. She has been treated with

cruelty, physically and mentally and has been deserted after 11.05.2002

without any sufficient cause.

The lower Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it

was the conduct of the appellant herself which has forced the respondent to

live separately.

The finding of the lower Court is apparently based on

presumptions and conjectures.

The stand of the appellant that she has been treated with cruelty

on 11.05.2002 and having been thrown out of the house, has not been

viewed correctly by the lower Court. Besides this, no reasonable ground has

been mentioned in the written statement indicative of any matrimonial

wrong on the part of the appellant-wife who had been beaten and thrown out

of the house along with the child. Even otherwise, defence of the

respondent stands struck off and from the testimony of Phool Singh PW-1

which is supported by the appellant while appearing as PW-2, the grounds

of cruelty and desertion stand established. No step seems to have been

taken by the respondent for restoring the matrimonial life. False allegation

seems to have been raised which would be deemed to have caused mental

cruelty to the appellant-wife. The plea of the appellant for cruelty and

desertion stands established on the basis of evidence produced and on

account of defence of the respondent having been struck off on the basis of

3 of 4
11-03-2018 00:25:04 :::
FAO-M-216-2014 -4-

circumstances mentioned herein above.

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of

lower Court is set aside. The petition under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act is allowed. Decree of divorce is granted in favour of the

appellant-wife, the defence of the respondent having been struck off on

account of non-payment of arrears of maintenance pendente lite. Marriage is

dissolved by decree of divorce.

Decree sheet be prepared.


February 26, 2018. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
harsha JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

4 of 4
11-03-2018 00:25:04 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *