{"id":7060,"date":"2009-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-21T19:23:23","modified_gmt":"2019-03-21T13:53:23","slug":"jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Jasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh on 27 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Jasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh on 27 August, 2009<\/div>\n
FAO No.211-M of 2003                                           1\n\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                                       FAO No.211-M of 2003\n                                       Date of decision: 27.08.2009\n\n\n\nJasbir Kaur                                              ..Appellant\n\n                                 Versus\n\nKuljit Singh                                             ...Respondent\n\n\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA\n\n\n\nPresent:-      Mr.Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate,\n               with Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate,\n               for the appellant.\n\n               Mr.G.S.Bhatia, Advocate,\n               for the respondent.\n\n                    ---\n\n      1.       Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may\n               be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n       2.      To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n\n       3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in\n               Digest?\n                          ---\n\nVINOD K. SHARMA,J.\n<\/pre>\n
               Appellant\/wife is in appeal against the judgment and decree<\/p>\n
dated 5.8.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala<\/p>\n
allowing the petition filed by the respondent\/husband under section 13 of<\/p>\n
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act).\n<\/p>\n
 FAO No.211-M of 2003                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
            Facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the<\/p>\n
parties were married as per Sikh rites at Chandigarh on 3.4.1990. After the<\/p>\n
marriage the   parties resided together at Patiala with some interval till<\/p>\n
10.2.1992 and there were cordial relations between the parties. After<\/p>\n
10.2.1992 appellant\/wife never came to live with the respondent and<\/p>\n
deserted the appellant for more than 4 years immediately before the filing of<\/p>\n
the petition. No child was born from this wedlock. The respondent\/husband<\/p>\n
was working as Sub Divisional Officer in the Punjab State Electricity Board<\/p>\n
and was posted at Patiala at the time of filing of the petition, whereas the<\/p>\n
appellant\/wife joined as clerk-cum- Cashier on 2.5.1990 in the State Bank<\/p>\n
of India, Branch Office, Mohali. The appellant used to travel from Patiala to<\/p>\n
Mohali till December, 1990 in order to attend her office. Thereafter the<\/p>\n
appellant started visiting Patiala at the end of every week till the date of<\/p>\n
desertion i.e. 10.02.1992. The case of the respondent further was that he<\/p>\n
had requested the appellant either to get herself transferred from Mohali to<\/p>\n
Patiala or take leave for longer period or in the alternative resign, as the<\/p>\n
appellant had sufficient means to lead a happy married life. Request of the<\/p>\n
respondent was declined and she continued with her job against the wishes<\/p>\n
of the appellant. This was said to be cruelty towards the appellant. It was<\/p>\n
also pleaded case of the respondent that in order to keep matrimonial tie<\/p>\n
alive he tried to get himself transferred to Chandigarh and submitted an<\/p>\n
application to his department but his request was declined. In spite of<\/p>\n
rejection of his request of transfer the appellant continued with the job<\/p>\n
against the wishes of the appellant. It was claimed that this act of appellant<\/p>\n
amounted to cruelty and further that the appellant was guilty of desertion.
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
             It was also pleaded case of the respondent\/husband that even<\/p>\n
during her stay with the respondent, her attitude towards the respondent was<\/p>\n
cruel as she used to maltreat and insult the respondent in the presence of his<\/p>\n
friends and relatives. She used to taunt that the respondent was interested in<\/p>\n
somebody else and was not interested to keep her. These allegations were<\/p>\n
said to be false and frivolous. It was also pleaded case that on one occasion<\/p>\n
the appellant remarked that as respondent did not tie his beard he looked<\/p>\n
like an owl in the presence of relations and friends. The respondent further<\/p>\n
alleged that when his friends visited his house during her stay, she never<\/p>\n
offered even water what to talk of tea and sweets and would start quarreling<\/p>\n
and calling bad names to the respondent in the presence of relations and<\/p>\n
friends. The marriage was said to be simple in which no dowry was given<\/p>\n
by the parents of the appellant, nor it was ever demanded and expected by<\/p>\n
the respondent. In spite of this the appellant and his father in order to harass<\/p>\n
the respondent and his parents got registered a false case under Sections<\/p>\n
406\/498-A\/120-B IPC and tried to get him and his parents arrested.<\/p>\n
             On an application moved by the respondent for anticipatory bail<\/p>\n
he had to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lac as ordered by this Court for payment to<\/p>\n
the appellant, and it was thereafter, that his application for anticipatory bail<\/p>\n
was considered and allowed. Amount of Rs.1 lac was deposited by the<\/p>\n
respondent by taking loan from G.P.F., friends and relations so as to avail<\/p>\n
concession of anticipatory bail. Respondent claimed that he was still under<\/p>\n
debt of his friends.\n<\/p>\n
             The appellant with the help of police conducted raid on the<\/p>\n
house of the respondent and all goods lying in the house were removed by
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
the respondent, though the goods belonged to the respondent. The appellant<\/p>\n
by misrepresentation and concealment of true facts, took away all articles<\/p>\n
and put respondent under heavy loss and harassment. It was also alleged<\/p>\n
that behavior of the appellant and his parents was very cruel towards the<\/p>\n
respondent from the very beginning. The respondent further claimed that he<\/p>\n
tried to reconcile the matter and took Panchayat to the house of the<\/p>\n
appellant in the month of February 1992, but the appellant and her parents<\/p>\n
refused to accede to the genuine request of the respondent.<\/p>\n
            On the occasion of Dussehra in the year 1992, the respondent<\/p>\n
tried to bring the appellant to her matrimonial home at Patiala with the help<\/p>\n
of his uncle and other friends, but she refused to accompany them. As such<\/p>\n
the appellant was guilty of cruelty of desertion.\n<\/p>\n
            It was also the allegation of the respondent that in the presence<\/p>\n
of respectables she levelled false allegations against the respondent that he<\/p>\n
was impotent. Allegations were said to have been levelled by the appellant<\/p>\n
in order to torture and humiliate the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
            The petition was contested by the appellant by raising a<\/p>\n
preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. It was<\/p>\n
averred that as per the pleadings, the parties had last resided together at<\/p>\n
Chandigarh and therefore, only Courts at Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
try and adjudicate the petition. It was also the case set up by the appellant<\/p>\n
that on 10.12.1993, a compromise was arrived at between the parties in a<\/p>\n
duly convened Panchayat comprising respectable persons, and relatives of<\/p>\n
both the parties. Meeting of the Panchayat was held in Gurdwara, Sector-34<\/p>\n
and Sector-35. In the Panchayat, it was decided that both the parties shall
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
reside at Chandigarh w.e.f. 10.12.1993. This arrangement was arrived at as<\/p>\n
it was not possible for the appellant to reside at any other place away from<\/p>\n
Chandigarh, because she was then working as Assistant Manager in the<\/p>\n
State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh. It was also<\/p>\n
the case of the appellant that compromise was accepted by both the parties<\/p>\n
and further the father of the respondent assured, that they shall not resile<\/p>\n
from the compromise in any manner. On the basis of this assertion, it was<\/p>\n
claimed that Court at Patiala had no territorial jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
             It was also the case of the appellant that petition for divorce<\/p>\n
was filed as a counter blast to the criminal complaint filed under Sections<\/p>\n
406\/498-A and 120-B IPC against the respondent and his parents on<\/p>\n
18.8.1994.   The appellant claimed that she was maltreated with cruelty<\/p>\n
which ultimately resulted in filing of the complaint.<\/p>\n
             It was the positive case of the appellant that prior to the filing<\/p>\n
of the criminal complaint, all possible measures to save the matrimonial<\/p>\n
home were taken and attempts were made by the relations and friends.<\/p>\n
             However, the respondent did not accept the request made by<\/p>\n
her.\n<\/p>\n
             Another preliminary objection was that the respondent was of<\/p>\n
very quarrelsome nature and his conduct was very suspicious and doubtful.<\/p>\n
It was averred that before the marriage with the appellant, the respondent<\/p>\n
was engaged to a Canadian Girl namely Smt.Inderjit Kaur, The engagement<\/p>\n
and Shagun ceremony with Smt.Inderjit Kaur was performed at Delhi, in<\/p>\n
which he had received a sum of Rs.2 lacs along with other costly gifts.<\/p>\n
             It was alleged that the respondent and his parents were greedy
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
persons, and just a day prior to the marriage with Smt.Inderjit Kaur, they<\/p>\n
demanded dowry worth Rs.4 lacs, on account of which the marriage could<\/p>\n
not take place and engagement was broken. Respondent, however,<\/p>\n
succeeded in retaining a sum of Rs.2 lacs and other valuable articles. On<\/p>\n
the basis of above said allegations it was pleaded that the conduct of the<\/p>\n
respondent showed, that he was habitual in spoiling the lives of girls, after<\/p>\n
receiving handsome amount.\n<\/p>\n
            On merit, factum of marriage was admitted. However, it was<\/p>\n
denied that parties had cordial relations. The case set by the appellant was<\/p>\n
that from the very beginning of the marriage the respondent and his parents<\/p>\n
started maltreating the appellant, as they were not satisfied with the dowry<\/p>\n
brought by her. It was claimed that father of       the appellant had given<\/p>\n
sufficient dowry beyond his capacity, but the lust of respondent and his<\/p>\n
family members remained unsatisfied. It was also pleaded case of the<\/p>\n
appellant that during the first five days of marriage the respondent and his<\/p>\n
parents continued harassing the appellant for the account of salary of five<\/p>\n
years service period, prior to marriage. It was      alleged that respondent<\/p>\n
threatened to teach her a lesson, in case she failed to account for the salary<\/p>\n
of five years period prior to marriage. It was also the case of the appellant<\/p>\n
that the demand of cash and dowry continued growing with passage of time,<\/p>\n
which made the life of the appellant miserable with each passing day.<\/p>\n
            It was also case set up by the appellant that after marriage, the<\/p>\n
parties resided at Patiala for some time and thereafter, they continued<\/p>\n
residing at Chandigarh upto 31.12.1993 under        the compromise. It was<\/p>\n
pleaded that just after ten days of marriage, the respondent told her that
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
they should adopt a child, rather than having their own child which led to<\/p>\n
apprehension in her mind that respondent may be suffering from impotency.<\/p>\n
It was pleaded that appellant had joined the Bank service on 13.5.1985<\/p>\n
and was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in State Bank of India, Mohali<\/p>\n
Branch, when the marriage was solemnized. After the marriage the appellant<\/p>\n
remained on leave upto 1.5.1990 and thereafter, she remained on leave for<\/p>\n
five months. The appellant thereafter continued coming daily from Patiala to<\/p>\n
Mohali to attend office. It was also averred by the appellant that she tried<\/p>\n
her level best to maintain her relationship with the respondent and his<\/p>\n
family members, but the respondent at the instance of his parents continued<\/p>\n
to harass and humiliate the appellant with utmost cruelty. Even after taking<\/p>\n
huge amount, on the night of 9.2.1992, the respondent made an attempt to<\/p>\n
eliminate the appellant, but could not succeed, because of tactful handling<\/p>\n
by the appellant i.e. that she agreed to sign the LIC papers after some time<\/p>\n
as demanded.\n<\/p>\n
            On 10.2.1992, early in the morning in-laws of the appellant<\/p>\n
again gave her severe beating to force her to sign the LIC policy, but, the<\/p>\n
appellant refused to do so. She was thereafter thrown out of her in-laws<\/p>\n
house in bare three clothes. In spite of this incident, the appellant hushed up<\/p>\n
the matter, so that relations are not strained. It was also pleaded, that the<\/p>\n
appellant sacrificed her promotion to the next higher rank, so that the<\/p>\n
relationship between the parties may not suffer further damage.<\/p>\n
            The appellant claimed that she was eligible for promotion to<\/p>\n
officer rank in the year 1990, but she did not avail that opportunity, as she<\/p>\n
always desired to remain in the company of the respondent. The appellant
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
had even applied for her transfer from Mohali to Patiala on 7.5.1990, which<\/p>\n
showed her bona fide intention to maintain the matrimonial relations intact.<\/p>\n
            It was alleged that the respondent\/husband never remained<\/p>\n
interested in making the married life happy, rather, she was treated with<\/p>\n
cruelty and humiliation by the respondent and his parents. It was claimed<\/p>\n
that the respondent was interested in her continuing with job and that was<\/p>\n
the reason to seek transfer from Patiala to Mohali. It was further alleged that<\/p>\n
the respondent had married the appellant only with a view to have an<\/p>\n
earning spouse. It was asserted that the respondent never applied for his<\/p>\n
transfer from Patiala, nor he ever disclosed this fact to the appellant even<\/p>\n
during his stay at Chandigarh. The appellant had no knowledge at all about<\/p>\n
his application for transfer. The appellant denied the allegation of mis-<\/p>\n
behaviour, and insult in the presence of relations. She claimed that she<\/p>\n
treated the respondent, his parents, relatives, friends and other visitors<\/p>\n
gracefully, and in a very appropriate manner. Allegation of simple marriage<\/p>\n
was denied. It was alleged that marriage was performed with great pomp<\/p>\n
and show, and various dowry articles like jewellery and cash were given to<\/p>\n
the respondent and his parents.\n<\/p>\n
            It was also pleaded that a case under Sections 406\/498-A and<\/p>\n
120-B IPC was registered against the respondent and his parents after<\/p>\n
thorough investigation by the Police. It was also the case set up that the<\/p>\n
appellant and her parents, had tried their level best to persuade the<\/p>\n
respondent and his parents not to adopt unwarranted ways. She claimed that<\/p>\n
on occasion of Dussehra, the appellant along with her parents and uncle met<\/p>\n
her father-in-law and the respondent so that the dispute could be patched
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
up, as her parents hoped for improvement. It was pleaded that the meeting<\/p>\n
was held at the House of Shri Malik Singh i.e. No.3392, Sector-19-D,<\/p>\n
Chandigarh, but no concrete solution was found. It was in the meeting that<\/p>\n
it came to the knowledge of the appellant, her father and the relatives that<\/p>\n
Shri Malik Singh and father of the respondent were the main culprits in<\/p>\n
humiliating    and spoiling the relations   so   that the marriage of the<\/p>\n
respondent could be arranged with third girl, to fetch some more money.<\/p>\n
              In the replication, averments made in the petition were<\/p>\n
reiterated whereas averments made in the written statement were denied.<\/p>\n
              On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were<\/p>\n
framed by the learned Matrimonial Court:-\n<\/p>\n
              1.   Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner for two<\/p>\n
                   years immediately before the presentation of the<\/p>\n
                   petition? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              2.   Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with<\/p>\n
                   cruelty? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              3.   Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              4.   Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree for<\/p>\n
                   divorce?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              5.   Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              In support of his case respondent\/husband appeared as PW 5<\/p>\n
and also examined Gurinder Singh PW 1, D.K.Kapoor PW 2, Joginder<\/p>\n
Singh PW 3, Satnam Singh PW 4 besides adducing documentary evidence.<\/p>\n
              To rebut the claim of the respondent\/husband,               the<\/p>\n
appellant\/wife herself appeared in the witness box as RW 10 and also
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                           10<\/span><\/p>\n
examined HC Gurmeet Singh as RW 1, Daljit Singh RW 2, Prem Singh RW<\/p>\n
3, Taranjit Singh RW 4, SI Jagbir Singh RW 5, Manjit Singh RW 6,<\/p>\n
Harbhajan Singh RW 7, Bhupinder Singh RW 8, Sardar Singh RW 9 and<\/p>\n
also led documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n
            Issues No.1 and 2 were taken up together by the learned<\/p>\n
matrimonial court.\n<\/p>\n
            In the background of settled principle of cruelty learned<\/p>\n
matrimonial court assessed the evidence led by the parties to the effect that<\/p>\n
the allegations of cruelty are based on the grounds       that the appellant<\/p>\n
continued with her job against his wishes, that the appellant passed taunting<\/p>\n
remarks   that he looked like a owl in the presence of his friends and<\/p>\n
relatives, that her behavior towards the relatives was not good, as she never<\/p>\n
served water etc. to guests and lastly that she falsely alleged him to be<\/p>\n
impotent person.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned matrimonial court held that the respondent had<\/p>\n
pleaded in the petition, that the appellant alleged him to be impotent person<\/p>\n
in the presence of relatives. This assertion was supported by him while<\/p>\n
appearing in the witness box. The learned court held that there was no<\/p>\n
specific denial to these allegations, in the written statement rather the<\/p>\n
appellant took a stand, that after 10 days of marriage the respondent told<\/p>\n
her that they should adopt a child, rather than having their own. In this way<\/p>\n
it was revealed that the respondent may be suffering from impotency. Even<\/p>\n
while appearing in the witness box as RW 10 the appellant did not deny<\/p>\n
the allegations of impotency having been made by her. The statement of<\/p>\n
appellant in examination-in-chief was not challenged in cross-examination.
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
            Learned matrimonial       court    held that the plea of the<\/p>\n
respondent, in this regard got support from the document relied upon by the<\/p>\n
appellant. Ex.R.28 was the complaint lodged by the appellant against the<\/p>\n
respondent and his parents on the basis whereon FIR Ex.R.30 was got<\/p>\n
recorded, and order of conviction was also passed against the respondent<\/p>\n
vide Ex.R.31.\n<\/p>\n
            Even in the complaint she alleged impotency and unchastity<\/p>\n
against the respondent. The learned matrimonial court observed that in her<\/p>\n
statement she stated, that it appeared to her that respondent was impotent,<\/p>\n
and further that he might have got illegal relationship with another girl<\/p>\n
either in his office or elsewhere. The learned court held that matter did not<\/p>\n
end there as during the pendency of the petition the respondent filed an<\/p>\n
application to undergo medical examination regarding potency to disporve<\/p>\n
the averments in the written statement. In reply to the application the<\/p>\n
appellant reiterated that she had rightly pleaded in para No.5 of the written<\/p>\n
statement that the appellant may be suffering from        impotency. It was<\/p>\n
asserted by the appellant that the allegations were neither frivolous nor<\/p>\n
vexatious but based on well founded apprehension of the appellant, on the<\/p>\n
basis of desire of the respondent to adopt a child rather than having their<\/p>\n
own. The learned matrimonial court on appreciation of evidence came to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that it stood proved, that the appellant had levelled false<\/p>\n
allegations of impotency.\n<\/p>\n
            The plea of the appellant that it was the respondent who caused<\/p>\n
cruelty to the appellant by stating that he did not want a child that too only<\/p>\n
after 10 days of marriage was not accepted. It was held that        there was
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                          12<\/span><\/p>\n
consummation of marriage as it was not the case of the appellant that<\/p>\n
marriage was not consummated or that she never had any sexual<\/p>\n
relationship with him.\n<\/p>\n
            The learned matrimonial court came to the conclusion that in<\/p>\n
the absence of plea of non-consummation of marriage, the allegations of<\/p>\n
impotency were false which definitely caused pain and anguish to the<\/p>\n
respondent which resulted in mental cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
            Plea of the appellant that there was no independent witness<\/p>\n
produced, to prove these allegations was not accepted, as the       learned<\/p>\n
matrimonial court held that the sole statement was sufficient. Furthermore<\/p>\n
from the document relied upon by the appellant, it was evident that<\/p>\n
allegations of impotency were made. The learned matrimonial court, placed<\/p>\n
reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case<\/p>\n
of Smt.Padmini Vs. G.Sivananda 2000 (2) CCC 325 wherein it was held<\/p>\n
that the allegations of impotency of her husband which are conveyed to the<\/p>\n
brother of the husband created intense mental cruelty, anguish and pain to<\/p>\n
the husband to come to the conclusion that cruelty stood proved.<\/p>\n
      The learned matrimonial court held that allegations of impotency, did<\/p>\n
not remain within the family and close circle rather it was made open to the<\/p>\n
public when the respondent raised these allegations in Ex.R.28, which was<\/p>\n
addressed to the Chief Minister, Punjab, Inspector General of Police, Union<\/p>\n
Territory Chandigarh, Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh\/Patiala<\/p>\n
and Chairman Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. On the basis of<\/p>\n
complaint Ex.R.28 proceedings were also initiated under sections 406 and<\/p>\n
498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was             decided vide
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment Ex.R.31. The judgment passed by the learned trial court was set<\/p>\n
aside by appellate court.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned matrimonial court also held that even in the judgment<\/p>\n
Ex.R.31 impotency was one of the basic issue raised by the appellant. The<\/p>\n
learned court, therefore, held that the respondent faced these allegations<\/p>\n
throughout the trial and on the basis of these,      learned matrimonial court<\/p>\n
came to the conclusion that allegations of impotency caused great pain and<\/p>\n
anguish to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
            The respondent also led medical evidence to prove that he was<\/p>\n
capable of having sexual intercourse and to establish his potency he had<\/p>\n
examined PW 2 Dr.Joginder Singh, Superintendent Office of Civil Surgeon<\/p>\n
Patiala who proved the medical examination report qua the respondent<\/p>\n
Ex.P.6. In the     said report a positive finding was recorded that the<\/p>\n
respondent was not suffering from impotency. Allegations of cruelty i.e.<\/p>\n
non-preparation of tea etc for his relatives and friends, her misbehaviour<\/p>\n
were treated to be general and not specific in nature and therefore, not<\/p>\n
accepted. The allegations that wife had stated that respondent looked like<\/p>\n
owl in the presence of relations and friends were also not accepted being<\/p>\n
vague. Evidence of Shri V.K.Kapoor was not accepted in this regard. Other<\/p>\n
allegations of cruelty were held to be not proved.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned matrimonial court also did not accept the version that<\/p>\n
the appellant was working against the wishes of the respondent. Version of<\/p>\n
the appellant that the respondent and his family members caused cruelty to<\/p>\n
her as they were not satisfied with the dowry was not accepted. Learned<\/p>\n
matrimonial court held       that demand of dowry is certainly a cruelty, but
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                          14<\/span><\/p>\n
these allegations have to be established by specific and trustworthy<\/p>\n
evidence. In support of these allegations only oral evidence was led by the<\/p>\n
appellant. The Learned matrimonial court observed that no          allegations<\/p>\n
regarding dowry were levelled till the filing of the complaint Ex.R.28 i.e.<\/p>\n
on 18.4.1994, when the parties were living separately. The learned<\/p>\n
matrimonial court further held that even in the criminal case the parents<\/p>\n
were acquitted vide judgment Ex.R.31. The learned court also did not<\/p>\n
believe the assertion of the appellant that the money from joint recurring<\/p>\n
account opened by the parties was taken away by the respondent for buying<\/p>\n
a plot, in view of her admission, that the recurring deposit amount, was<\/p>\n
with her and she has invested it in her and her mother’s name. The learned<\/p>\n
matrimonial court on the basis of evidence also did not accept the plea that<\/p>\n
the respondent was a greedy person. The learned court also held that the<\/p>\n
allegations that the respondent had tried to eliminate her on 9.2.1992 and<\/p>\n
tried to force her sign on LIC papers were not believable, for want of<\/p>\n
evidence in support thereof.\n<\/p>\n
             The learned matrimonial court also did not accept the version<\/p>\n
of the appellant, that engagement with Smt. Inderjit Kaur was broken on<\/p>\n
account of demand of dowry. The learned matrimonial court held that after<\/p>\n
the marriage the parties had last resided at Patiala, and the version of the<\/p>\n
appellant that after the compromise they resided at Chandigarh was not<\/p>\n
believed due to the material      contradiction in evidence. The learned<\/p>\n
matrimonial court held that from the evidence it was established that the<\/p>\n
appellant had not returned to the matrimonial home after 10.2.1992 and was<\/p>\n
guilty of desertion.\n<\/p>\n
 FAO No.211-M of 2003                                           15<\/span><\/p>\n
             Issues No.1 and 2         were decided in favour of the<\/p>\n
respondent\/husband. Issue No.3 was not pressed. In view of the findings on<\/p>\n
issues No.1 and 2, issue No.4 was             decided    in favour of the<\/p>\n
respondent\/husband and against the appellant. Resultantly, the marriage<\/p>\n
between the parties was ordered to be dissolved by a decree of divorce.<\/p>\n
             Mr.Arun Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
appellant vehemently contended that the finding of the learned matrimonial<\/p>\n
court on the ground of desertion cannot be sustained as there was no<\/p>\n
evidence on record showing animus deserendi as the appellant was always<\/p>\n
ready and still ready to join matrimonial home. The respondent himself is<\/p>\n
not   interested to keep her and has     remarried in spite of appeal. The<\/p>\n
contention of the     learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
appellant was that after the separation attempts were made to reconcile the<\/p>\n
matter and in fact, the parties had compromised the matter and started living<\/p>\n
together.\n<\/p>\n
             It was also the contention of learned senior counsel appearing<\/p>\n
on behalf of the appellant     that in order to succeed on the ground of<\/p>\n
desertion it was for the respondent to prove the separation and animus<\/p>\n
deserendi for continuous period of 2 years immediately preceding the<\/p>\n
presentation of petition.\n<\/p>\n
             It was also the contention of the learned senior counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant that she was not living separately without reasonable cause as she<\/p>\n
is a working lady and was required to stay at her place of posting.<\/p>\n
             It was due to the act of cruelty and misbehaviour        of the<\/p>\n
respondent and his family members that it became impossible for her to visit
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                            16<\/span><\/p>\n
her matrimonial home at Patiala. It was for these reasons that the<\/p>\n
arrangement was made to stay together at Chandigarh. The arguments raised<\/p>\n
by the learned senior counsel for the appellant looked attractive on the face<\/p>\n
of it but when seen in depth it has no substance for the reasons to be stated<\/p>\n
hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n
               The appellant had set up a positive case that compromise was<\/p>\n
arrived at between the parties on 10.12.1993, where it was decided that the<\/p>\n
parties were to live at Chandigarh. In pursuance thereto they, in fact, resided<\/p>\n
at Chandigarh from 30.12.1993.This assertion was tried to be proved on the<\/p>\n
ground that the stamp paper was also purchased by the respondent to write<\/p>\n
the compromise arrived at between the parties in the meeting held in Park<\/p>\n
in Sector 35, Chandigarh, but it was not written. Support in this regard was<\/p>\n
sought from the statement of Daljit Singh RW 2, Prem Singh RW 3<\/p>\n
Harbhajan Singh RW 7 and Bhupinder Singh RW 8. This plea cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted as it was rightly held by the learned matrimonial court that no<\/p>\n
explanation was forthcoming as to why no writing was written, if there was<\/p>\n
actually a compromise, as alleged.\n<\/p>\n
               The stand of the appellant stood negatived, by the documentary<\/p>\n
evidence, that appellant was in fact on tour from 7.12.1993 to 10.12.1993<\/p>\n
to attend a court case which was fixed before Hon’ble Delhi High Court.<\/p>\n
TA Bills were also produced          to prove the tour programme by the<\/p>\n
respondent, therefore, the version of the appellant that there was<\/p>\n
compromise cannot be accepted. Furthermore, in the pleadings it was said<\/p>\n
that compromise was arrived at Gurudwara, whereas in the evidence it was<\/p>\n
stated to be arrived at in the park in Sector-35.\n<\/p>\n
 FAO No.211-M of 2003                                           17<\/span><\/p>\n
            It may further be seen that the learned matrimonial court<\/p>\n
rightly held that the appellant was not able to give the name of landlord<\/p>\n
under whom they lived as tenant nor rent receipts were produced, nor any<\/p>\n
ration card, gas delivery card, voter list or any other document showing their<\/p>\n
residence was brought on record.\n<\/p>\n
            It may also be noticed here that the specific allegations made by<\/p>\n
the appellant that she was treated with cruelty were found to be false.<\/p>\n
Taking of false defence leaves no manner of doubt that the respondent<\/p>\n
succeeded in proving, the separation and animus deserendi, for a period of 2<\/p>\n
years preceding the time of presentation of petition. The second marriage<\/p>\n
was performed after the decree of divorce. The mere offer to live with the<\/p>\n
husband at the time of reconciliation cannot be a ground to upset the<\/p>\n
findings on desertion.\n<\/p>\n
            To challenge the        finding of cruelty, it was vehemently<\/p>\n
contended, that the allegations were made by the appellant on the basis of<\/p>\n
reasonable apprehension, in view of the fact that the respondent within first<\/p>\n
10 days of marriage, had desired that parties should adopt a chid as he did<\/p>\n
not want to have their own child.\n<\/p>\n
            The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
further was, that allegations of impotency were not made in public as is<\/p>\n
clear from Ex.R.23 i.e. the first complaint made by the respondent in which,<\/p>\n
no allegation of impotency was made. It was further contended by the<\/p>\n
learned senior counsel that in the complaint filed on the basis of which<\/p>\n
FIR was registered no specific allegations of impotency       were made, but<\/p>\n
only apprehension was shown in view of the desire of the respondent to
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                            18<\/span><\/p>\n
adopt a child.\n<\/p>\n
            The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
also was that husband cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong<\/p>\n
by claiming, that this false allegation of impotency was levelled against the<\/p>\n
respondent so as to cause mental cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
            On consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions<\/p>\n
raised by the     learned counsel for the appellant. The allegations of<\/p>\n
impotency were not denied in the written statement filed by the appellant.<\/p>\n
Rather the allegations were reasserted in the complaint filed with the police.<\/p>\n
In reply to the application moved by the respondent for getting himself<\/p>\n
medically examined to prove his potency those allegations were reasserted.<\/p>\n
Merely because no allegations were made in the complaint Ex.R.23, cannot<\/p>\n
be of any advantage to the appellant, as it is the settled law that allegations<\/p>\n
made during the course of proceedings also amount to cruelty.<\/p>\n
            Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of               Vijay Kumar<\/p>\n
Ramchandra Bhate Vs. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate AIR 2003 SC 2462<\/p>\n
has been pleased to lay down as sunder:-\n<\/p>\n
             ”     Hindu Marriage Act S.13(1)(ia) – Divorce- Grounds,<\/p>\n
             mental ‘cruelty’   meted out of wife – Allegations made by<\/p>\n
             husband in written statement extensively with enumeration of<\/p>\n
             instances and incidents against wife branding her as an<\/p>\n
             unchaste woman, keeping extra marital relations is a grave<\/p>\n
             assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as<\/p>\n
             the health of the wife and viewed in the context of an educated<\/p>\n
             Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards.
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                           19<\/span><\/p>\n
            Allegations amount to worst form of insult and cruelty,<\/p>\n
            sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law. Claim of wife<\/p>\n
            liable to be allowed. Withdrawal of such allegations<\/p>\n
            unilaterally by the husband by filing an application for<\/p>\n
            amendment of the written statement. Do not wipe out complete<\/p>\n
            all those allegations for all purposes and amendments carried<\/p>\n
            out subsequently does not absolve the husband from being held<\/p>\n
            liable for having treated the wife with cruelty. Moreso when<\/p>\n
            such allegations continue to remain on record.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the<\/p>\n
case of V.Bhagat Vs. Mrs. D.Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710.\n<\/p>\n
            Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of S.Latha Kunjamma<\/p>\n
Vs. K.Anil Kumar AIR 2008 Kerala 203 has been pleased to lay down<\/p>\n
that averments, accusations and character assassinations attributed to party<\/p>\n
in the written statement and during the examination of facts also constitute<\/p>\n
cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
            Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the<\/p>\n
case of Smt.Savitri Balchandani Vs. Mulchand Balchandani AIR 1987<\/p>\n
Delhi 52 and Ashok Vs. Santosh AIR 1987 Delhi 63. The allegations of<\/p>\n
impotency, though respondent was found to be potent in medical<\/p>\n
examination do amount to cruelty. The plea that these allegations were<\/p>\n
based on reasonable apprehension, also has no legs to stand, as the parties<\/p>\n
lived together and marriage was duly consummated.\n<\/p>\n
            The respondent was further       treated with cruelty as false<\/p>\n
criminal case was got registered against the respondent and his family
\n FAO No.211-M of 2003                                             20<\/span><\/p>\n
members in which they stand acquitted. This act of the appellant itself is<\/p>\n
sufficient to hold that the appellant had treated the respondent with cruelty.<\/p>\n
              In view of what is stated above, the finding of the learned<\/p>\n
matrimonial court on the ground of cruelty is also affirmed.<\/p>\n
              Consequently, this appeal is ordered to be dismissed with no<\/p>\n
order as to costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                    (Vinod K.Sharma)\n 27.08.2009                                              Judge\nrp\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Jasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh on 27 August, 2009 FAO No.211-M of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.211-M of 2003 Date of decision: 27.08.2009 Jasbir Kaur ..Appellant Versus Kuljit Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present:- Mr.Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7060","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-21T13:53:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh on 27 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-21T13:53:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":5203,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Jasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-21T13:53:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh on 27 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-21T13:53:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh on 27 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-21T13:53:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009"},"wordCount":5203,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009","name":"Jasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-21T13:53:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-kaur-vs-kuljit-singh-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh on 27 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7060","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7060"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7060\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7060"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7060"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7060"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}