Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 485 (PNJ)

Sat Pal Singh v. Baljeet Kaur

2001-05-01

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a husbands appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.2.1997 passed by Addl. District Judge, Ambala, who dismissed the petition of Sat Pal Singh appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act) seeking dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce. 2. The appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act against his wife Smt. Baljeet Kaur by inter alia pleading and alleging that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 12.10.1986. They lived as husband and wife and cohabited with each other and out of this wedlock a male child was born on 16.12.1988, who is residing with the respondent-wife. It is alleged by the appellant that the attitude of the respondent-wife towards him and his family members was not proper since very beginning. She never treated them properly and she used to abuse and insult them without any reason off and on. The appellant tried to bring her on the right path but no result. The respondent was always pressing him to live in a separate house from his parent. The appellant is the only son of his parents, who are of old age and it was not possible for him to leave them and that is why he refused to accept the demand of the respondent. Resultantly the behaviour of the respondent became worse. In the month of January, 1987, the respondent went to her parental house along with the jewellary and valuable articles without any reason and then she was brought back with the intervention of Panchayat. For some days she lived peacefully but again she started misbehaving with them. After the birth of male child in the month of December, 1988 she again went to her parental house when the appellant went to bring her back, not only the respondent but her parents insulted him. She was brought back in the month of January, 1989 after lot of persuasion through the intervention of the respectables. She has no love and affection towards the child. Whenever any family friend or relative visited their house, the respondent did not attend them and the preferred to go to the bed room or to leave the house. In the month of November, 1990 the respondent-wife asked him to give Rs. She has no love and affection towards the child. Whenever any family friend or relative visited their house, the respondent did not attend them and the preferred to go to the bed room or to leave the house. In the month of November, 1990 the respondent-wife asked him to give Rs. 20,000/- to her sister, but when he showed his inability to lend such a guge amount, the respondent became more furious. After one month of this incident i.e. in the month of December, 1990, Saravjeet Singh, Pritpal Singh alias Manga, brother of the respondents and their friends armed with sticks came to the house of the appellant and attacked him, but he was rescued by the neighbours. This act not only humiliated him but he also felt mentally and physically tortured. In the month of July, 1992, the respondent sent a notice levelling allegations against the appellant which was duly replied by him. As the appellant was always willing to reconcile the matter, a Panchayat was convened in Devi Mandir, Ambala City on 2.8.1992. It was attended by some respectables and it was decided that the parties will live separately from their parents. A compromise was reduced into writing but even thereafter the respondent did not join the company of the appellant. She always believed in muscle power of her brothers. They used to insult the appellant physically. On 21.4.1993, the brother of the respondent namely Pritpal Singh kidnapped the appellant from Model Town, Ambala City near railway fly over and confined him in the room of his house. He also gave fist and slap blows to him. The appellant was rescued in the evening by him family members. The matter was reported to Police Post, Model Town, Ambala City and then Pritpal Singh admitted his guilt and felt sorry in writing. Thereafter the respondent filed a complaint against the appellant and his family members in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC on false and baseless grounds. The appellant and his family members were called and harassed by the police in that case. Thus the respondent has tortured him mentally and physically. It is a broken marriage. Therefore, a decree of divorce has been sought against the respondent mainly on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 3. The appellant and his family members were called and harassed by the police in that case. Thus the respondent has tortured him mentally and physically. It is a broken marriage. Therefore, a decree of divorce has been sought against the respondent mainly on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent, who filed the written statement and denied the allegations levelled by the appellant. According to the respondent, the behaviour of the petitioner and his family members was cruel towards her from the very beginning. They were demanding more dowry again and again. She was given beating so many times under one pretext or the other. The respondent used to prepare meals and do all other household work regularly. The appellant and his family members used to ask him to render the accounts about her salary drawn by her before the marriage. They used to keep the whole salary with them even after the marriage. She gave birth to a female child in the year 1987 before the male child but that child expired due to the blows given on her stomach before her birth. The expenses of the medicines and hospital were met by her brothers. The male child was also born in Mission Hospital, Ambala City and all the expenses of delivery were borne by her brothers. When she was to deliver the male child, the appellant left her at the hospital and went to her brothers to meet out the expenses as he was not having any money with him. The mother of the appellant used to give her beating even after the birth of the male child. She was turned out by the appellant from the house. She lived in her parental house for 6/7 months and then was brought back due to the intervention of the respectables. The appellant assured her that he would not misbehave with her. Her family members also paid Rs. 2,500/- for the purpose of gas cylinder and Rs. 5,000/- for the purchase of moped but the lust of the appellant for more money never satisfied. On 2.12.1990, the appellant and his mother asked her to prepare new pillow but in the meantime she had gone to bring milk for the newly born son and came after about 20 minutes. She was to serve the milk to the infant at that time. On 2.12.1990, the appellant and his mother asked her to prepare new pillow but in the meantime she had gone to bring milk for the newly born son and came after about 20 minutes. She was to serve the milk to the infant at that time. But due to the delay, the appellant and his mother became furious and they gave beating to her. The appellant went to her parental house and asked them to bring her back. She was turned out of the matrimonial house without any reason. In the month of July, 1992 Harpal Singh Bhatia and others tried to patch up the matter but the appellant and his mother demanded Rs. 50,000/- at that time. They also asked her to sign a bond clearing them from any responsibility even if she dies in their house. Her signatures were also obtained on some blank papers. Even after the compromise on 2.9.1992, the appellant did not take her to her matrimonial house. Rather, he filed a false complaint against her brothers who were harassed by the police and the signatures of her brother Pritpal Singh were obtained by the police. She never demanded Rs. 20,000/- as alleged by the appellant. The allegations of misbehaviour on her part with the friends, relatives and family members of the appellant are denied. It was stated by the respondent that she is still willing to live with the appellant. With these broad defence the respondent made a prayer for the dismissal of the petition. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :- "1. Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner, as alleged ? OPP 3. Relief." 5. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and on the conclusion of the proceedings, both the issues were decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. Resultantly, under issue No. 3 the petition was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.2.1997, the present appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case. My findings on issues No. 1 and 2 are as follows :- 8. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.2.1997, the present appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case. My findings on issues No. 1 and 2 are as follows :- 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently submitted that it is proved on the record that the appellant was kidnapped by the brother of the respondent. The matter went to the police where the brother of the respondent categorically admitted his fault and guilt and this act itself is an act of cruelty. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the writing dated 21.4.1993 allegedly signed by Pritpal Singh which was addressed to the Incharge, Police Post, Model Town, Ambala City, I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that it is not established on the record that Pritpal Singh allegedly kidnapped the appellant at the behest of the respondent. If the entire document is read as a whole, it will make it clear that it is stated in this document that there was a dispute going on between the parties for a petty long time. It is stated by Pritpal Singh that seeing the condition of his sister he lost his tamper and he went to the house of the appellant in order to call him, as a result of which he brought the appellant forcibly to his house where in anger he exchanged some words for which he felt sorry. It is the natural impulse on the part of Pritpal Singh when he saw the condition of his sister. Until and unless it was established the Pritpal Singh had acted on the advice and at the instigation of his sister, the document Mark B cannot be taken advantage to. 9. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is established on the record that respondent treated the appellant with cruelty right from the very beginning. She never respected the appellant and his family members. She made a demand of Rs. 20,000/-. She also pressed the appellant that he should live separately from his parents. 9. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is established on the record that respondent treated the appellant with cruelty right from the very beginning. She never respected the appellant and his family members. She made a demand of Rs. 20,000/-. She also pressed the appellant that he should live separately from his parents. This demand of the respondent could not be met because the parents of the appellant were old. He is the only son of his parents and in these circumstances he could not leave his parents under the pressure of the respondent. I have considered this aspect of the case as well and in my opinion this is devoid of any merit if scrutinised in depth. Rather, in my opinion this ground is a created one. It appears that on account of the income of the respondent a dispute took place between the appellant and the respondent. The respondent perhaps in her anxiety did not want to part her income to the appellant and this became the sole contention of the dispute. The alleged demand of the respondent that she would like to live separately from the parents of the appellant, in my opinion, is a false story because there is a document Ex.P4 on the record through which the compromise was arrived at between the parties and it was agreed upon by the appellant that he would live with the respondent in a separate house. When the appellant became ready to live with the respondent under the compromise dated 2.8.1992, then it means that he was ready to leave his parents. Unfortunately, the appellant did not adhere to this compromise. As agreed upon, it was his duty to bring back the respondent, but the appellant did not take any step for the rehabilitation of the respondent. In these circumstances, the appellant cannot take the advantage of this argument also. If the respondent had asked the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to her sister, it is not an act of cruelty. After all the respondent was asking for a loan for the benefit of her sister. It is a very common thing among the relations to ask for money. 10. If the respondent had asked the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to her sister, it is not an act of cruelty. After all the respondent was asking for a loan for the benefit of her sister. It is a very common thing among the relations to ask for money. 10. It was then argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is established on the record that the respondent was in the habit of insulting the appellant-husband and his family members. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, in my opinion, is totally devoid of any merit. There is no corroboration to this part of the allegations of the appellant. Not a single friend has been examined to support the allegations of the appellant. On going through the petition I have come to the conclusion that most of the allegations are vague and made in the air. Specific allegations of cruelty are not proved. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the respondent has deserted the appellant for a period of more than two years and on this ground also the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce. This argument of the learned counsel also cannot be accepted. In my opinion, the respondent was turned out from her matrimonial house, as a result of that she had to take shelter in the house of her brothers. It is not a case of desertion. It has categorically been stated by the respondent that she is ready to live with the appellant. During the course of submissions I also made enquiries from the appellant as to whether he is interested to rehabilitate the respondent and the appellant categorically stated that he is not interested to rehabilitate the respondent. In these circumstances, the appellant cannot be allowed to take the advantage of his own wrong. 12. It is not a case of broken marriage. Rather, it is established on the record that the respondent was always inclined to forget her past but the appellant was not interested in the respondent. In these circumstances, I affirm the findings of the trial court on issues No. 1 and 2 and seeing no merit in the appeal hereby dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.