Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 728 (PNJ)

Ajmer Singh v. Ranjit Kaur

2002-07-30

J.S.NARANG

body2002
Judgment J.S.Narang, J. 1. The marriage between the petitioner-appellant and respondent was solemnized on 25.10.1970 in accordance with and in pursuant to the Sikh Anand Karaj ceremony which was performed at village Gill Tehsil and District Ludhiana. Both of them lived together and cohabited. Resultantly, a son namely Satwin-derjit Singh was born out of this wedlock on April 14, 1972 at Kapoor Hospital, Ludhiana. 2. The petitioner-appellant has pleaded that the respondent lived with him upto July 1971 and in that month she had left the matrimonial home of her own accord and, therefore, deserted him without any sufficient or reasonable cause. The petitioner-appellant joined regular service in Air Force and was in service at the time of marriage. The old parents of the petitioner-appellant had been residing with him, the younger brother Gurmukh Singh separated and is living separately since 1971 and is not on visiting terms with the rest of the family. The allegation is that the respondent refused to look after his parents and further refused to join his company. However, genuine and strenuous efforts were made to bring around reconciliation between the parties themselves and through the good offices of relatives and friends. However, nothing could be resolved and the respondent continued to live separately. During this period, the father of the appellant died and that the respondent did not turn up for joining the performance of last rites. Mother of the appellant is bed ridden with dislocated disc for the last four years. The appellant had got married and it was resolved that both of them would be able to look after the parents but the behaviour of the respondent remained very unsavoury which caused mental cruelty to him which was further added by the act of the respondent in leaving the matrimonial home without the knowledge of the appellant. 3. It is alleged that a criminal complaint against the appellant had been filed at the instance of the father of the respondent at police station Khanna on 9.1.1976. The purpose and object of the complaint was to cause harassment and to insult the appellant in the eyes of the public by levelling false allegations against the appellant. The allegations were also substantiated by the mother of the respondent in December 1972. It is evident that a communication was addressed to the Air Force authorities at Chandigarh. The purpose and object of the complaint was to cause harassment and to insult the appellant in the eyes of the public by levelling false allegations against the appellant. The allegations were also substantiated by the mother of the respondent in December 1972. It is evident that a communication was addressed to the Air Force authorities at Chandigarh. However, upon enquiry it was found that the complaint is false and scandalous which had been filed to lower the prestige of the appellant so that he is not able to earn promotion or may be thrown out of service. In the year 1980, the respondent again submitted written complaint to the Airport Authorities for stopping the payment of gratuity amount. In pursuant to the said complaint, again an enquiry was conducted which caused mental agony and harassment to the appellant. The appellant was compelled to leave the service. He was never allowed to meet his son since his birth, which again caused mental cruelty to the appellant. He had filed an application for seeking custody of his son which was dismissed by the Guardian Judge. Respondent No. 1 had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which has been allowed by the Court. The divorce petition has been filed on two counts namely; desertion and mental cruelty caused to the appellant. 4. The respondent contested the claim of the appellant and has emphatically denied the allegations contained therein. However, the fact of marriage and the birth of the child has been admitted. The allegation of desertion and cruelty have been emphatically denied and to the contrary she has stated that in fact she and her son had been thrown out by the petitioner from his house on May 12, 1972. She had made an effort to come back to the matrimonial home but she was again turned out on December 23, 1975 and that she had been given a beating on February 8, 1976. She again made an effort to come back to the matrimonial home in the year 1980 but just after four days, she was thrown out of the house and thereafter, she is living at the sufferance of her brother. She had in fact approached the Air Force authorities for giving maintenance allowance to her and her son out of the salary of the appellant. She had in fact approached the Air Force authorities for giving maintenance allowance to her and her son out of the salary of the appellant. She had been advised that she should approach the Court, resultantly the application for maintenance had been filed before the appropriate Court and that she was awarded finally maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month by the appellate Court. She was not paid the maintenance but the same had to be demanded through the Court. She has stated that she had never ever deserted the appellant but he has in fact deserted them and he never even bothered to know the welfare of his son. She has never been taken to the place of posting of the appellant and that during her stay in the parental home of the appellant she had been maltreated by his parents and that all of them collectively turned her out of the house along with her son and on some occasion was given beating. It is further pleaded that the petition for divorce has been filed as a contrival to escape his liability to maintain her and the son. 5. From the pleadings of the parties issues had been struck. Learned District Judge has returned a finding that the appellant has not been able to prove the allegations of his parents as no medical evidence in this regard has been produced on record. The appellant has admitted in his cross examination that from 1971 to 1982, he had not made any monetary provisions for the maintenance of his wife nor had sent any money-order for payment of any maintenance allowance. It is obvious that she has been living at the sufferance of his brother. So far as criminal complaint made by the father of the respondent is concerned, the complaint could not be produced on record being not traceable. The father of the respondent died during the pendency of the petition, therefore, could not be produced to prove the allegations of the appellant. It may be noticed that the appellant did not summon the SHO for production of the application/complaint filed by Lal Singh father of the respondent. Thus, without ascertaining the contents of the alleged complaint, it cannot be assumed or presumed that the appellant was oppressed, harassed and humiliated in any manner by the family of the respondent. It may be noticed that the appellant did not summon the SHO for production of the application/complaint filed by Lal Singh father of the respondent. Thus, without ascertaining the contents of the alleged complaint, it cannot be assumed or presumed that the appellant was oppressed, harassed and humiliated in any manner by the family of the respondent. The request to the Air Force authorities for payment of the amount to the respondent has not been denied and that the plea has been taken that the maintenance has not been paid by the appellant and that she was made to live at the sufferance of her parents. The effort on the part of the respondent would not cause mental cruelty to the appellant as he has admitted categorically that he did not provide any maintenance allowance to the respondent right from 1971 upto 1982 but the maintenance pendente lite/maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be given under the orders of the Court. In fact, no relief was granted by the Air Force authorities and resultantly she had to file appropriate proceedings before the Courts for the appropriate relief. The appellant has not been able to produce any positive or corroborative evidence to the effect that any mental cruelty has been caused to him by the respondent, rather to the contrary she was subjected to hard and cumbersome procedure for seeking maintenance allowance for herself and a son born out of this wedlock and that only a meager sum of Rs. 300/- has been awarded which admittedly is not sufficient for maintaining one person and a child. However, the growing child would need more which could not be provided with such meager sum made available to her. 6. A perusal of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record, I am of the opinion that no infirmity can be found in the judgment dated January 2, 1991 passed by the trial Court vide which the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. No effort seems to be forthcoming from the husband for maintaining the child and his wife in the correct perspective. Even the effort made by this Court for bringing around has failed as there is no positive effort forthcoming from the appellant. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.