Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 719 (PNJ)

Satwant Kaur v. Gurnam Singh

2001-07-19

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2001
ORDER Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife against the judgment and decree dated 18.4.1995 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana granting divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 2. Marriage between the parties took place on 18.12.1977 and one son was born out of the wedlock on 30.12.1978 who is living with the husband. The husband is working in the State Bank of India and the wife is a teacher. 3. The husband filed a petition in January 1994 alleging inter alia, that the wife treated him with cruelty and in 1984 she left the matrimonial home on her own accord. The husband further alleged that the wife was suffering from schizophrenia. The respondent made efforts to bring the appellant back but did not succeed. The wife contested the petition and stated that she was turned out of the house and was separated from her son and thus the husband deserted her, and in spite of her best efforts refused to keep her. 4. Trial court accepted the petition of the husband and dissolved the marriage between the parties. Aggrieved thereby this appeal has been preferred. 5. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat under section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act. The Lok Adalat observed that no compromise was possible between the parties. The matter was, therefore, sent back to this Court for decision on merits. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record with the assistance rendered by him. 7. I find that there is no material on the record to prove the allegation of cruelty. Trial court in para 15 of its judgment adopted a wholly erroneous approach in drawing the inference of cruelty vaguely without referring to any particular material, which is against the law on the point. Further fact that the husband pleaded that the wife separated against this wishes and he was keen to continue with her and had even made efforts to bring her back, contradicts the stand of the husband that the wife had treated him with cruelty. If the husband had developed a feeling that the conduct of the wife was injurious to resuming cohabitation, it is not possible to believe that he would not have liked to remain separate, or that he would have made efforts claimed by him to bring the wife back. If the husband had developed a feeling that the conduct of the wife was injurious to resuming cohabitation, it is not possible to believe that he would not have liked to remain separate, or that he would have made efforts claimed by him to bring the wife back. I, therefore, disbelieve the version of the husband and reject the plea put forward by him that the wife treated the husband with cruelty. I also reject husbands evidence that the wife left the matrimonial home of her own accord and she was not willing to live with him. I am also of the view that the husband has failed to prove animus deserendi. I put to learned counsel for the respondent, whether his client was willing to keep the wife even now, but his submission that the decree of divorce should be upheld. It is impossible to draw an inference of desertion by the wife in this situation. 8. The last contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the marriage has irrevocably broken down and on that ground, the order dissolving the marriage should be upheld. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), 1994(1) SCC 337 and Ramesh Chander v. Smt. Savitri, 1995 Apex Selected Judgments 261. I have perused the said judgments. This judgments have no application to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, I allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree under appeal. Consequently, the divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband is also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.