P4 and P5 letters to the superior officers of Col.
The appellant alleged various facts to support his claim that the respondent was behaving cruelly towards him.
He alleged that the respondent was greedy for money and tried all means to get money from him.
It was held by the Trial Court that the father of the respondent had written Exh.
It was also alleged by the respondent that the mother of the appellant replied on 27.5.1989 and in that letter, the appellants mother had written that the appellant was also legally divorced.
Respondent alleged that the negotiations between the parties companytinued for about 8 months and the appellant and his family members made inquiries about the marital status of the respondent and that the appellant was informed of all details and he companysented to the marriage out of his own free will and without any force, fraud and companyrcion.
501 502 of 2002 have been filed.
The Trial Court after elaborately companysidering the matter held that there was numberfraud or misrepresentation on the part of respondent.
A son was born to the companyple on 14.7.1991.
The appellant came to know that she had been staying with her parents in India and his efforts to bring her back failed.
Thus, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant failed to prove that there was either desertion or cruelty on the part of the respondent.
It was found by the Trial Court that the respondent went to the clinic where the appellant was working and shouted slogans alleging that the appellant was a man of loose character.
The Trial Court held that the respondent was responsible for causing cruelty to the appellant and hence the appellant was held entitled to get divorce however, the plea of desertion was rejected.
The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 28.1.1990 and the same was registered on 30.1.1990.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench and the same was dismissed.
PW 6/1 application for registration of marriage and the other was Exh.
501 502/2002 G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted.
R.I. Singh, brother in law of the appellant.
J U D G M E N T Arising out of SLP Civil No.
These letters companytained defamatory statements about the said R.I. Singh.
The appellant alleged that after the respondent gave birth to a child, she became more violent and used to slip off the house without appellants knowledge and would companye late at home.
We heard the appellant who appeared in person and also the learned Counsel for the respondent.
This finding was approved by the learned Single Judge and the decision was companyfirmed by the Division Bench.
The respondent also alleged that the appellant in his advertisement had number disclosed the fact that he was a legally divorced person.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an LPA before the Division Bench and by Judgment dated 19th July, 2001, the High Court dismissed the LPA filed by the appellant.
This application was rejected by the Trial Court and the order was companyfirmed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
Many of the incidents alleged by the appellant happened in Germany and there was numberdirect evidence to support these facts.
Unfortunately, the Court did number enter a specific finding that there was cruelty on the part of respondent.
By October 1992, the appellant came to know that the respondent at the time of her marriage was a divorcee, and she had earlier married one Sanjit Singh of Meerut.
The appellant had also filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on two grounds, viz.,
According to the appellant, the respondent had suppressed this fact and the appellant was under the impression that she was an unmarried woman and, therefore, the respondent and her family members companymitted fraud and misrepresentation and on these grounds, the appellant sought annulment of the marriage.
The respondents father wrote a letter on 14.5.1989 giving the bio data of the respondent and mentioned her status as legally divorced.
One document on which the appellant relied was Exh.
Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The appellant alleged that in February 1992, respondent along with her child left Germany without the knowledge and companysent of the appellant.
In these two documents, the status of the respondent was shown as unmarried whereas the status of the appellant was shown as a divorcee.
The Trial Court observed that there was numbercross examination on this point and this act of the respondent was number certainly an act of dutiful, obedient and tolerant wife and, secondly, though the appellant requested the respondent to join as a party to a document whereby the appellant wanted to purchase a house, for which the respondent had number companytributed anything, she refused to be a party to the document and left Germany in February, 1993.
Therefore, the civil appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos.
493 of 2002 is filed against that Judgment.
There are documents to show that the appellant was aware of the marital status of the respondent at the time of marriage.
that the respondent deserted him and that she had companymitted cruelty against him.
The respondent alleged that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was initiated pursuant to an advertisement made by the appellant in the matrimonial companyumns of The Hindustan Times newspaper dated 14.5.1989.
The appellant alleged that the respondent insulted the appellant even in the presence of his friends and acquaintances.
Aggrieved by the same, Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.
493/2002 With Civil Appeal No.
Despite the absence of this finding, the Trial Court granted divorce to the appellant and the same has rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge.
The appellant alleged that the respondent was number doing any household work and used to hurl abusive words against him and even resorted to physical violence.
It is important to numbere that the appellant did number lead any evidence before the Trial Court.
The appellant made inquiries through his relatives and got companyfirmation of this fact.
All these allegations were number accepted by the Trial Court and based on two or three instances, it was held that the respondent behaved cruelly towards the appellant.
PW 3/R 3 was the letter written by the mother of the appellant.
The respondent alleged that these documents were prepared by the appellant herein and the respondent was only made to sign these documents.
Moreover, this by itself does number prove that either the respondent or her parents had made any fraudulent misstatement.
This fact was admitted by the appellant when he was examined as PW 1.
In that letter, she had made reference to the letter dated 14.5.1989 alleged to have been sent by Surinder Singh, the father of the respondent, and mentioned that the appellant was also legally divorced person.
In July 1991, the mother of the respondent had also companye to Germany and started staying with the appellant.
It was alleged that the respondent wanted to grab money from the appellant.
Aggrieved by the same, both the appellant and the respondent filed separate appeals and by a companymon Judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein.
of 2003 Arising out of SLP Civil Nos.
Based on this, it was companytended that the fact of her previous marriage was suppressed by the respondent and her parents.
The respondent filed a companynter statement and denied the allegations made by the appellant.
PW 6/2, an affidavit of respondent filed for the said purpose.
The learned Single Judge elaborately companysidered the matter and held that there was numbercruelty on the part of the respondent.
These two appeals arise out of the Judgments passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.
The appellant herein filed an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of his marriage with the respondent, Harjit Kaur.
On these premises, the Trial Court held that the respondent was number a dutiful and obedient wife.
