High CourtsSingle Bench(2001) 07 P&H CK 0042

Sucha Singh vs Paramjit Kaur

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 23 July 2001 · Citation: AIR 2002 P&H 46

HON’BLE JUDGES
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
F.A.F.O. No. 79-M of 1994

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 285 words

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal has been preferred against Judgment and decree dated 18-3-1992 passed by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissing the divorce petition filed by the husband-petitioner on the ground of desertion.

2.

Marriage between the parties took place on 5-5-1979 and 2 children were born out of the wedlock. The divorce petition was filed on 1-4-1991 alleging that the respondent-wife was not willing to live at appellant's house and wanted the appellant to keep her with him or to keep her separately at Chandigarh. It appears that the appellant husband is living abroad and visits India sometimes. The appellant-husband failed to appear in the witness box and instead his brother Leehamber Singh and one Balbir Singh, Sarpanch of village Majra Dhingran appeared and stated that the respondent-wife was not willing to live with the parents of the husband. The trial Court, apart from finding that the evidence of the appellant was not satisfactory, found that the respondent could not be said to have deserted the appellant. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the divorce petition. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been filed.

3.

The matter was referred to Lok Adalat u/s 10 of the Indian Legal Services Authority Act. The Lok Adalat recorded in the proceedings dated 27-1-2001 that the husband was living in USA and the wife was living in Germany and there was no possibility of compromise.

4.

I have perused the record and considered the matter. I am in agreement with the finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondent-wife cannot be said to have deserted the appellant-husband. Therefore, no decree for divorce could be granted.

5.

This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.