In that situation the reference made during the companyrse of the order to the respondent would in effect refer to the original respondent, namely the deceased husband of the appellant.
The incident as stated by the respondent herein as the petitioner before the companyrt below by examining himself as PW6 was referred and the entire narration relating to relationship with Smt.
In that light, the instant appeal was heard in that backdrop.
From the pleading as put forth before the District Court in the petition, the trigger for the dispute between the parties arose at the point when the appellant and the children had gone over to stay with the respondent at Manipur.
It is in that view she had approached the police authorities pursuant to which the action was taken.
The parties herein though had resided in Ludhiana till 1988, had shifted to Bathinda thereafter.
When this was the position, since the respondent was serving in the Armed Forces, he was posted at Nagaland in the year 1989 and was thereafter posted at Manipur till 1992.
To that effect the plea taken by the respondent about such relationship when they were residing in Ludhiana has been referred and the incident was sought to be raised through the evidence of the said Sri Daya SinghPW1.
The appellant has further referred to the nature of relationship the respondent herein was maintaining with Mrs. Nirmaljit Kaur wife of Capt.
was registered and the father of the respondent as also the respondent were arrested and the proceedings were held.
Insofar as the incident relating to the house which had resulted in filing the companyplaint with the police under Section 107/151 of Cr.
The trial companyrt has thereafter referred to the evidence of another witness on behalf of the respondent herein namely Col.
Inderjit Singh, regarding which she had raised objections and despite the same they were living in the same room of the house belonging to the appellant.
Inderjit Singh is said to have sent his wife and children along with the respondent to Bathinda and they remained there while the respondent had taken treatment.
Inderjit Singh who thereafter told the respondent.
M.S. A.No.2021/2010 Page 7 of 16 Sidhu, a companyleague and in that regard having referred to his evidence has indicated that his evidence is number trustworthy going by the very nature in which he has referred to every aspect as if he was privy to all matters of the family.
PC it was taken numbere that the appellant had to take recourse to such proceedings to protect her right.
As on the date of filing the petition the parties had spent 25 years of married life and had be gotten two sons and a daughter from the wedlock, who were also grown up.
In that circumstance due to the affinity of the family the said Capt.
In that background the trial companyrt had thought it fit to rely on the evidence of Pritam Singh who was examined as RW1, a resident of Gobindgarh as also the evidence of Gurudayal who was examined as RW2.
While taking numbere of the same the trial companyrt has referred to the pleadings of both sides and has taken numbere of the nature of allegations that were in fact made by the respondenthusband against the appellantwife by securing the evidence of the witness Sri Daya Singh as PW1, to state that the appellant herein had illegitimate relations with the driver named Swarna.
Inderjit Singh looked after the petitioner.
The respondent was thereafter posted at Amritsar and according to the respondent even at that point whenever the respondent visited Bathinda where the appellant and two sons were staying, the appellant again raised the said issue and made false allegations and also had sent the sons and a friend to keep a watch over the activities of the respondent.
In addition, the appellant herein is stated to have filed a suit against the respondent seeking declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the House No.22, Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda wherein she had alleged that the respondent had defrauded her.
In that view the respondent herein had companytended in the petition that the said acts of the appellant had amounted to mental cruelty and therefore had sought for dissolution of the marriage.
The wife of Capt.
The trial companyrt in that light proceeded to companysider as to whether the appellant herein had treated the respondent with cruelty and as to whether the appellant had deserted the petitioner for a companytinuous period of two years.
Apart from the same, the respondent has companytended that the appellant had intentionally lodged a false report against the respondent to the S.P. Operations Bathinda due to which a case under Section 107/151 of Cr.
The said incident is stated to have been raised by the respondent herein in the presence of the appellant to clarify the situation, but the appellant herein started shouting at the respondent and also alleged that the respondent herein had illegitimate relationship with the wife of Capt.
Inderjit Singh.
Insofar as the action initiated by the appellant by lodging a companyplaint to the police, it is companytended that in July, 1995 the respondent along with the relations came to the house of the appellant, began to attack her, removed the articles from the house and was forcing her to vacate the house.
To that A.No.2021/2010 Page 8 of 16 extent the evidence of one of the sons of the parties Shri Iqbaal Singh who was examined as RW6 was taken numbere, wherein he has stated that the respondent herein and the said Smt.
Inderjit Singh had companyveyed this aspect to Capt.
The respondent herein instituted the proceedings in H.M.A. File No.133 of 16.12.1995 through the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage which was solemnized between the appellant and respondent during December, 1970 as per the Sikh rites.
Nirmaljit Kaur was taken numbere.
The appellant herein who was the respondent had filed detailed objections disputing the averments put forth by the respondent herein in his petition.
Insofar as A.No.2021/2010 Page 5 of 16 the incident relating to House No.22, Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda it was companytended that the plot was allotted to the appellant in 1987 and the companystruction was put up after obtaining money from the father of the appellant, after which they were residing along with their two sons.
Subsequent thereto all of them including the appellant and the children had also gone back to Manipur.
According to the respondent herein he was suffering from gastric and related problems and due to his illness, a Punjabi family of Capt.
Certain other A.No.2021/2010 Page 4 of 16 incidents which had taken place in Amritsar are referred to in the petition, which need number be elaborated herein.
The further details which led to the misunderstanding between the appellant and the respondent is adverted to in the petition filed before the companyrt below.
Though the families were known to each other in that manner, according to the respondent the A.No.2021/2010 Page 3 of 16 appellant herein started levelling baseless allegations against the respondent herein and his father.
In that light it was companytended by the appellant that the act A.No.2021/2010 Page 6 of 16 of the respondent herein in fact would amount to inflicting cruelty on the appellant herein and number as alleged by the respondent.
As such, the Date 2019.08.21 141146 IST Reason cause of action has companytinued to subsist and the legal A.No.2021/2010 Page 1 of 16 representatives namely, the daughter and sons of the deceased respondent were allowed to be brought on record by this Court through the order dated 05.09.2014 passed in IA No.3 of 2012.
At that stage the petition was filed by the respondenthusband seeking dissolution of the marriage alleging mental cruelty inflicted upon him A.No.2021/2010 Page 2 of 16 by the appellant herein.
S. Bopanna,J. The appellant herein is the wife of the original respondent who died during the pendency of this appeal.
Since the order impugned passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 23.08.2006 in F.A.O.No.101 M of 1999 had allowed the appeal and dissolved the marriage, the marital status of the appellant is in issue Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH numberwithstanding the death of respondent.
Nirmaljit Kaur were behaving like husband and wife.
