Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 951 (PNJ)

Jamna Bai v. Mehnga Ram

2000-08-18

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a First Appeal against the order and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.11.1999, passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), who allowed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by Shri Mehnga Ram against his wife Jamna Bai. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized about 14 years back before the institution of the petition which was instituted somewhere in the year 1996. According to the petitioner-Shri Mehnga Ram, now respondent-husband in the present appeal, no dowry was given in the marriage. Rather he had given gold ornaments weighing about 5 tolas and silver ornaments weighing about 20 tolas to the respondent now appellant- wife. After the marriage, the parties started residing together as husband and wife. They co-habited at village Gidderanwali and their life remained peaceful and normal up to 11.7.1996, when a dispute arose between the respondent-husband and his brother-in-law i.e. the brother of Smt. Jamna Bai with regard to the turn of water. In that dispute, injuries were caused to the respondent-husband by Khushal Chand, brother of the appellant-wife and his sons. The petitioner remained admitted in the hospital. In his absence, appellant-wife left the matrimonial home without any reasonable excuse. It is further alleged by the respondent-husband that he had brought an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the Commission Agent for the treatment of his mother as she had been suffering from cancer. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- had been spent by him and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was left with him. An amount of Rs. 5,000/- was brought by him to the hospital for his treatment and remaining Rs. 5,000/- were lying in the house with the respondent-wife. When appellant-wife left the house without any reasonable excuse she also took away Rs. 5,000/- and ornaments. After his discharge from the hospital on 15.9.1996, the respondent-husband along with his father went to the house of the appellant-wife and entire story regarding the taking away of the gold ornaments was told by him to his in-laws. The respondent-husband and his father made a request to the appellant-wife to join the company of the husband but to no effect. The respondent-husband and his father made a request to the appellant-wife to join the company of the husband but to no effect. Even 15 days prior to the filing of the petition by the husband in the trial Court, the husband made an effort in the shape of a Panchayat consisting of his father Chandi Ram, Member Panchayat Gurdev Singh and Bhagwan Dass for the rehabilitation of the wife but to no effect. 3. Notice of the petition filed by the husband was given to the wife. According to the appellant-wife the respondent-husband had been harassing her from the very beginning for not bringing the adequate dowry. She was kicked out from the house on 11.7.1996 because on that day a dispute had taken place between respondent-husband and her brother. She has alleged that respondent- husband and his father and brother had caused injuries to her brother. She denied the other allegations of the husband and prayed for the dismissal of the petition filed by the husband. 4. From the above pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :- i) Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without sufficient cause ? OPA ii) Relief. 5. The respondent-husband appeared as PW-1 and he examined PW-2 Bhagwan Dass and PW-3 Chandi Ram. 6. On the contrary, appellant-wife appeared as RW-1 and examined RW-2 Lachhman Dass, RW-3 Des Raj and RW-4 Ashok Kumar. Thus, there was oral evidence led by both the parties and on the conclusion of the proceedings and for the reasons given in para No. 7 of the impugned order dated 2.11.1999 the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, filed by the husband, was allowed. Para No. 7 of the impugned judgment is reproduced as under :- "7. It is an admitted fact that marriage of the parties was solemnised about 14 years before the filing of this petition. The petitioner and the respondent co-habited together for a period of 13 years i.e. up to 11.7.1996 and there was no serious complaint to any of them against each other. No doubt in the reply, the respondent has pleaded that the petitioner and other members of his family had been harassing from the very beginning for bringing inadequate dowry and they had been demanding a scooter. No doubt in the reply, the respondent has pleaded that the petitioner and other members of his family had been harassing from the very beginning for bringing inadequate dowry and they had been demanding a scooter. But it appears that these pleadings have been introduced by the respondent on the advice of some other person because it is usually seen that in such like cases, the wife takes the plea that she had been harassed for bringing inadequate dowry. The respondent has failed to produce any evidence to show that any dispute had taken place between the parties prior to 11.7.1996 on account of any reason. No complaint was ever made by the respondent or any other member of her family to any authority against the petitioner for the alleged acts of harassment. There is no satisfactory evidence to prove that the petitioner or members of his family had been harassing the respondent. It is an admitted fact that on 11.7.1996 a dispute had taken place between the petitioner and his brother-in-law i.e. brother of the respondent in which the injuries were received by both the parties. The witnesses of both the parties have admitted that criminal cases initiated by them against each other are pending and both the parties are claiming that his case is true and the case got registered, or filed by the other party is false. In the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is always for the respondent to prove that he/she is having a sufficient cause for withdrawing from the society of the petitioner. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent left the matrimonial house on 11.7.1996. As per the case of the petitioner, she left the matrimonial home of her own as he was admitted in the Hospital at the relevant time on account of the injuries received by him at the hands of his brother-in-law. But the case of the respondent is that she was kicked out of the house by petitioner on account of dispute with her brother. In order to prove this fact, the respondent made her own statement as RW1 and has stated that she was expelled from the house after having been giving beatings by the petitioner. But the case of the respondent is that she was kicked out of the house by petitioner on account of dispute with her brother. In order to prove this fact, the respondent made her own statement as RW1 and has stated that she was expelled from the house after having been giving beatings by the petitioner. She has stated that they were not blessed with any child and for that reason also the petitioner wanted to get re-married and he did not like to maintain her as his wife. She has stated that she had took a panchayat to the house of the petitioner to request him that he should rehabilitate her. Her statement in this regard has been corroborated by RW2 Lachhman Dass, RW3 Des Raj, RW4 Ashok Kumar. Though the respondent and her witnesses have stated that the respondent was thrown out of the house by the petitioner and they had gone to his house to make a request to the petitioner to re-habilitate the respondent yet from the cross-examination of respondent, it appears that in fact she is not having any reasonable cause or excuse for residing separately. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was not ready to join the company of her husband as he does not maintain her in a nice manner. It was also stated by her that she was ready to join her company only if Sarpanch Parkash Singh gives assurance on his behalf. It was suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner that her husband had opposed Sarpanch Parkash Singh in the panchayat elections as such it appears that the name of Sarpanch Parkash Singh was mentioned by her intentionally because she knew that it will not be possible for the petitioner to produce him to give assurance with regard to his conduct. This fact falsifies the version of the respondent that she has always been ready and willing to join the company of the petitioner. She has stated that she was not ready to join his company on account of maltreatment. As already discussed above, there is no evidence to prove that petitioner was not treating her properly earlier. It is clear that dispute arose between the parties only after the fight between the petitioner and his brother-in-law on 11.7.1996. The refusal on the part of the respondent to join the matrimonial company is not justified. As already discussed above, there is no evidence to prove that petitioner was not treating her properly earlier. It is clear that dispute arose between the parties only after the fight between the petitioner and his brother-in-law on 11.7.1996. The refusal on the part of the respondent to join the matrimonial company is not justified. Even if it be assumed that after the fighting between the petitioner and brother of the respondent, some dispute had taken place between both of them and as a result thereof, the respondent had left the house, there is no sufficient ground for rejecting this petition for restitution of conjugal rights. There is no evidence that on account of said dispute between the petitioner and brother of the respondent she apprehends any danger to her life and limb. She has tried to prove that she had taken a panchayat to the house of the petitioner as such she wanted to prove that she has been deserted by the petitioner but she has failed to prove this fact. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent." 7. After allowing of the petition, Jamna Bai appellant-wife has filed the present appeal. 8. I have heard Shri A.K. Khunger, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri C.M. Munjal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 9. As I stated above, it is a case of oral evidence. Everybody has tried to support his case but there are certain glaring and probable facts from which a reasonable inference can always be drawn that it was Smt. Jamna Bai-appellant who left the matrimonial home with the intention to sever the relations for all times to come. In order to constitute desertion the respondent-husband was supposed to prove the factum of desertion and intention on the part of the deserting spouse that she had left the company of her counter-part with the intention to sever the relations. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the marriage was performed about 18 years back. It has also come in evidence that no child was born out of this wedlock. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the marriage was performed about 18 years back. It has also come in evidence that no child was born out of this wedlock. The case set up by the petitioner-husband is that on 11.7.1996 there was a dispute over the turn of water between him and the brother of the respondent-wife and in that dispute, the petitioner, Shri Mehnga Ram suffered injuries and he was admitted in the hospital. It is also in evidence that upto this date, there was no quarrel between the parties. The allegation of Smt. Jamna Bai that her husband was treating her with cruelty on the ground of inadequate dowry, does not appeal to reasons. Why Shri Mehnga Ram should treat his wife with cruelty when he had not done so for the last 18 years of his marriage ? Rather, the fact is that Shri Mehnga Ram is tolerating and accepting Smt. Jamna Bai as his wife in spite of the fact that Jamna Bai has not delivered any child. It is always the interest of an agriculturist to have some member in the family. Unfortunately, Smt. Jamna Bai has not delivered any child. Still the behaviour of Mehnga Ram with his wife throughout was cordial. 10. Admissions are the best proof on which the opposite party can rely and unless those admissions are successfully withdrawn by the maker, these become conclusive and can be safely acted upon by the law Courts to come to a particular conclusion. Smt. Jamna Bai when appeared as RW-1, admitted that she never made any complaint to the Panchayat or to the police-station that she was being maltreated by her in-laws. She has further admitted that she never made any complaint against the respondent-husband that he had been making a demand of dowry. She further admitted that dispute arose between her brother and the husband and a case under Section 326 IPC was registered. Also she admitted that her husband was admitted in the hospital and when he was in the hospital she left her matrimonial home and went to the house of her parents. She categorically stated that she is not interested to live in the house of her husband because the husband does not treat her with respect. Also she admitted that her husband was admitted in the hospital and when he was in the hospital she left her matrimonial home and went to the house of her parents. She categorically stated that she is not interested to live in the house of her husband because the husband does not treat her with respect. In such a situation, a reasonable inference can always be drawn against the wife that she has left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause. It is not accepted from a Hindu wife to leave her husband in trouble and specially when her husband is suffering from grievous injury and is lying in the hospital. A role of the Hindu wife is to assist her husband in days of difficulty. During the days of difficulty the husband requires the need of his wife at the most. 11. On the contrary, there is ample evidence on the record that husband- respondent was always ready and willing to rehabilitate the appellant-wife. His statement is corroborated by Shri Bhagwan Das and Shri Chandi Ram. All these people have stated that respondent-husband never demanded the dowry etc. and he never treated the appellant-wife with cruelty. In such a situation, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 2.11.1999. 12. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.