Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 108 (PNJ)

Balwinder Kaur v. Bhajan Singh

2001-01-19

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is an FAO filed by Smt. Balwinder Kaur and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.8.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar who dismissed the petition of the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Balwinder Kaur-appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against her husband Bhajan Singh on the ground of cruelty. It was inter alia pleaded by the petitioner that her marriage with the respondent was solemnised according to Sikh rites on 10.3.1989 in village Khai, Tehsil Ratia, District Hisar. They cohabited with each other as husband and wife and out of this wedlock, two female children, namely, Jaswinder Kaur and Kanwaljit Kaur were born. Brother of the petitioner Harjinder Singh was married with the sister of the respondent namely Daljit Kaur and out of that wedlock a male child by name Mangha Singh was born. The brother of the petitioner died about one year back prior to the date of filing of the petition which was instituted on 24.8.199. After 20 days of the death of Harjinder Singh, his widow Daljit Kaur left the house and took away her dowry articles to the house of her parents. She also took her son with her. After the death of Harjinder Singh, the respondent-Bhajan Singh, his parents, brothers and sisters started maltreating the petitioner on petty matters. She was kept nicely till the death of her brother Harjinder Singh. The respondent and his other family members including the widow of Harjinder Singh, namely, Daljit Kaur intended to kill the petitioner and in order to achieve that object, they started giving her injuries on several occasions. Once the brother of the petitionr namely Pritam Singh came to village Sangha Dhani in order to bring back the petitioner but instead of sending her with her brother, he was very badly insulted. It is further alleged by the petitioner that in the month of January 1992 she was given merciless beatings by the respondent, his father and brothers. They put kerosene oil on her in order to burn her. The petitioner became unconscious due to the injuries given to her. The respondent and his father and brother took the petitioner and left her at her parents house. They put kerosene oil on her in order to burn her. The petitioner became unconscious due to the injuries given to her. The respondent and his father and brother took the petitioner and left her at her parents house. On 29.7.1992, the respondent along with his father, brothers and some police persons came to the house of the petitioner-appellant in village Khai and forcibly took her with them. No one else was present in the house at the time when the petitioner was confined in a room in the house. She was not provided food for 2 days. The mother and brother of the petitioner made a search of the petitioner. After about a week, they visited the house of the respondent at village Sandha Dhani and requested the respondent to send the petitioner with them but their request was declined by the respondent and his family members. The mother of the petitioner had obtained warrants under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehabad and with the assistance of the police the petitioner was brought to the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehabad where she made a statement. Thereafter, she was sent to the house of her parents along with her brother Pritam Singh. Since then the petitioner is residing in the house of her parents. With these broad allegations, the petitioner is residing in the house of her parents and she has made a prayer for decree of divorce. 3. Notice of this petition was given to the respondent-Bhajan Singh who filed reply and had denied the allegations. 4. The stand of the respondent was of total denial. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for the disposal of the petition:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as alleged ? OPP 2. Relief. 5. In support of her case, the petitioner examined herself as her own witness as PW1. She also examined her brother Pritam Singh as PW2. Besides Bhoora Singh has also been examined who appeared as PW3. 6. It may be mentioned here that the trial Court awarded litigation expenses besides the maintenance pendente lite. But the respondent did not pay the maintenance pendente lite and so by order dated 26.5.1993 his defence was struck off. She also examined her brother Pritam Singh as PW2. Besides Bhoora Singh has also been examined who appeared as PW3. 6. It may be mentioned here that the trial Court awarded litigation expenses besides the maintenance pendente lite. But the respondent did not pay the maintenance pendente lite and so by order dated 26.5.1993 his defence was struck off. The evidence of the petitioner was recorded on issue No. 1. Inspite of the fact that the defence of the respondent was struck off, issue No. 1 was decided against the petitioner for the reasons given in paras 7 to 13 of the impugned judgment. Resultantly, the petition was dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 3.8.1993, the present appeal has been filed by the petitioner-wife. 8. I have heard Mr. B.R. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.S. Saron, Advocate, for the respondents and with their assistance I have gone through the record of the case. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant simply addressed the arguments on issue No. 1 and I shall also confine my discussion on this issue only. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court committed a patent illegality in appreciating the statement of the witnesses. It had adopted hypertechnical approach. Learned counsel has vehemently submitted that it has been proved on the record that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty, therefore, she is entitled to a decree of divorce especially when there is no evidence of rebuttal led by the respondent as his defence was closed by the trial Court and also by the High Court vide order dated 4.7.2000 when the respondent committed default in payment of maintenance pendente lite of the petitioner. This order was passed in pursuance of the order dated 13.5.1999 vide which the maintenance pendente lite was fixed for the appellant and her children. There is merit in this contention of the learned counsel of the appellant. The appellant-Balwinder Kaur has sought divorce on the ground of cruelty. Cruelty has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act but it includes not only physical but also mental cruelty. It has been alleged by the appellant that behaviour of the respondent remained cordial for 2 years till the death of her brother Harjinder Singh who was married with the sister of the respondent, namely, Daljit Kaur. Cruelty has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act but it includes not only physical but also mental cruelty. It has been alleged by the appellant that behaviour of the respondent remained cordial for 2 years till the death of her brother Harjinder Singh who was married with the sister of the respondent, namely, Daljit Kaur. After the death of her brother strange relations in the marriage came because Daljit Kaur who was blessed with a male child left the home. It is proved on record that it was a vatta-satta marriage. Balwinder Kaur was married with Bhajan Singh and the sister of Bhajan Singh was married with Harjinder Singh who was the real brother of Balwinder Kaur. In such a situation, there is always broad probability that after of death of Harjinder Singh, the relations between the two families must have become very much strained. Unfortunately for the appellant, she was not blessed with any male child which is very dearing in the Jat families. She was blessed with two female daughters. With the death of Harjinder Singh, the respondent-Bhajan Singh must have though proper to recall his sister from the matrimonial home. In this manner, the relations between the two families became strained and specific evidence was led by the appellant that her husband and family members used to beat her and on one occasion, they threw kerosene oil on her. Even if this incident of cruelty is disbelieved because of the contradictory evidence, there is sufficient evidence on the record to draw an inference that the appellant was dealt with cruelty. When the family members of the wife are insulted in her presence on petty matters, it is an act of cruelty. Under the matrimonial law, the wife can always reasonably visit the house of her parents even when she is married and she sacrifices for the sake of her husband. It does not mean that she breaks her relations with her parents permanently. If she makes reasonable demand to visit the house of her parents rarely, it is not a bad demand nor it should be held to be an unreasonable demand. We all know that females are very sensitive in nature. They can tolerate and bear any insult committed by their husband qua them but it is very difficult for them to tolerate or bear insult of their parents, brothers and sisters. We all know that females are very sensitive in nature. They can tolerate and bear any insult committed by their husband qua them but it is very difficult for them to tolerate or bear insult of their parents, brothers and sisters. It is further proved that the petitioner was confined in a lonely room in a house. This act of the respondent was not a husband-like action. To put a lady in a solitary room is an act of cruelty itself. It is the duty under the law to maintain the wife. When the defence of the respondent has been struck off a reasonable inference can always be drawn that he was not feeding his wife after the death of Harjinder Singh. There is ample evidence on the record to suggest after going through the statements of PWs 1 and 2 that the appellant was got recovered with the help of the police and she was produced before the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehabad, and then she was sent to the house of her parents. Otherwise also no Hindu female married woman would like to leave the matrimonial home especially when she is having 2 female children. Likewise it was always the intention of the appellant-Balwinder Kaur to live in the matrimonial home under the custody and care of Bhajan Singh-the respondent (her husband) but instead she was insulted, beaten and her relations were also insulted before her. Even one act of cruelty under the law is enough to grant her a decree of divorce. 10. Reverting to the observations of the trial Court, in my opinion, these are hypertechnical in nature. The trial Court has not really appreciated the evidence. 11. Therefore, I reverse the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 1 and decide this issue in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. 12. In view of my findings under Issue No. 1, this appeal succeeds and is hereby accepted. The judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 3.8.1993 are hereby set aside. The petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is hereby allowed and I hereby dissolve the marriage of the parties by passing a decree of divorce. This appeal is therefore accepted with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.