Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 126 (PNJ)

Deepak Narang v. Babita Narang

2003-01-22

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - The present appeal is by the husband aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing his petition for dissolution of marriage. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.1.1996 at Panipat and a female child was born out of this wedlock on 31.1.1997. As per the appellant, the respondent started pressurising him to leave his parents house and to shift to Panipat to look after the new business started by her father and brother and to help them in running the business. Since he expressed his inability to leave his ailing mother who was chronic patient of heart disease and had already undergone surgery two times and also due to the fact that he was having a satisfactory job but the respondent, instead of conceding to his request, further started pressuring him to leave his parental home for Panipat. She even threatened that she would leave him and would settle with her parents at Panipat. Thereafter, the respondent also started quarrelling with him on trifling matters and to his dismay, she became arrogant, head strong and non-accommodative and started treating his younger brothers as her domestic servants. The appellant brought the conduct of the respondent to the notice of her parents and requested them to visit Faridabad. Her maternal uncle visited Faridabad on 9th or 10th March, 1996 who promised to send the parents of the respondent to Faridabad. The respondent did not do any household work and refused to serve his ailing mother. However, in the month of May, 1996, the father of the appellant visited Panipat but, instead of making the respondent understand, he started finding fault with the appellant. Due to this attitude of the respondent, relations became strained between the parties. 3. The appellant made all possible efforts to make the respondent see reasons into the uninvited interference by her mother and to correct the respondent but to the disappointment of the appellant, his every effort went futile. The atmosphere of the appellants home became most uncongenial rendering the marital relationship of the parties as most vulnerable to the evil interference of the respondent and her mother. The relations between the parties became strained. However, the appellant kept himself in control keeping in view the pRegulation ncy of the respondent. The atmosphere of the appellants home became most uncongenial rendering the marital relationship of the parties as most vulnerable to the evil interference of the respondent and her mother. The relations between the parties became strained. However, the appellant kept himself in control keeping in view the pRegulation ncy of the respondent. However, the respondent kept on ruining the domestic harmony of the appellants home and insult, humiliation and embarrassment to the appellant and his parents at the hands of the respondent became a regular feature. The respondent, keeping in view the interest of the appellant and his mother in the forthcoming child in the family, started threatening the appellant that she does not want to give birth to the baby and she wants to get the pRegulation ncy aborted. Again it was alleged that the respondent wanted the appellant to dispose of his share in the property and buy some property in Panipat. The appellant alongwith his wife visited Panipat and the parents of the respondent assured him that they would talk with their daughter and would prevent her from getting the child aborted. After spending a week at Panipat, the respondent came back to her matrimonial home, where, as per the appellant, she behaved well and became a better person till 7.7.1996, when her father came to Faridabad and requested that the respondent had to clear some exams of B.Ed. course which she had dropped earlier, therefore, she had to leave for Panipat. However, it was found that there were no exams. The appellant tried to communicate with his wife but her mother did not allow the respondent to attend to the calls of the appellant on one frivolous pretext or the other. The appellant and his parents tried their level best to bring the respondent back to her matrimonial home but the respondent and her parents did not have even courtesy to inform the appellant of the birth of a daughter on 31.1.1997. He came to know about the birth on 2.2.1997 from one of his relatives Thakur Dass Narang residing at Panipat. 4. It is further alleged that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 406/498-A/34 I.P.C. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. The appellant and his parents applied for grant of anticipatory bail. He came to know about the birth on 2.2.1997 from one of his relatives Thakur Dass Narang residing at Panipat. 4. It is further alleged that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 406/498-A/34 I.P.C. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. The appellant and his parents applied for grant of anticipatory bail. At that stage, the appellant brought the respondent back to the matrimonial home on 17.1.1998 believing the representation of the respondent and her father that they were willing to settle the matter and the respondent was willing to withdraw the complaint. However, on 18.3.1998, the father of the respondent came to Faridabad and instigated the respondent to file a false complaint against the appellant. The respondent accordingly made a complaint wherein the appellant was made to sit in the Police Station for hours. At the back of the appellant when he was in the police station, the respondent went to her parental house at Panipat taking away one year old child of the appellant without his consent or knowledge. 5. It may be mentioned that initially the appellant had filed the petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 4.12.1997 for restitution of conjugal rights. However, the said petition was allowed to be amended on 16.5.1998 and the amended petition filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. 6. The respondent appeared and filed a written statement alleging therein that the appellant is guilty of physical and mental torture on her and, thus, he can not be allowed to take the benefit of his own wrongs. It was pointed out that the respondent was being consistently pressurised to meet the demand of dowry by the appellant. The parents of the respondent had spent Rs. 3.50 lacs on marriage and had given all costly items in dowry. It was mentioned that they started demanding cash of Rs. 50,000/- on the pretext of improving their reputation in the locality which, according to them, was injured because of insufficient and cheap dowry. The respondent had been requesting the appellant that her father had already spent a huge amount on her marriage and was unable to meet the demand raised but the appellant supported the demand and was not moved at all. The respondent had been requesting the appellant that her father had already spent a huge amount on her marriage and was unable to meet the demand raised but the appellant supported the demand and was not moved at all. The parents of the respondent on 22.1.1996 requested the appellant to behave properly with their daughter. The parents of the appellant were also requested that the respondent be kept nicely. However, the appellant and his parents continued to maltreat the respondent. She was put to do menial works of the house-hold. The respondent stated that she accepted to do all kind of work and felt proud and did not feel that she was compelled to do menial house-hold work as she was already taught in her parents house and she knew the dignity of labour. However, it was stated that the appellant felt insulted and humiliated when they failed in their attempt of harassment by getting menial house-hold work done by the respondent and when she expressed no grievance. The respondent was expelled from the matrimonial home after giving beating without caring that she was pRegulation nt. On 10.3.1996, the respondent alleged that the appellant dropped her at Panipat with the direction to bring Rs. 50,000/-. However, the appellant and his family members did not take care to bring respondent back. On 24.6.1996, the respondent was pushed out in the bare clothes at 11 p.m. reaching Panipat at 2 a.m. when she was pRegulation nt. She filed the complaint under Section 406/498-A IPC against her in-laws because all efforts failed for amicable settlement. The appellant compounded the offence with an assurance that he would keep the respondent nicely. The respondent, in the interest of her female child and in her own interest, believed the assurance and went alongwith the appellant on 17.1.1998. She was never told that the appellant had filed the petition against her in November, 1997. It was pointed out that the petition could not be amended to be filed under Section 13 of the Act when on the date of hearing, the respondent was living with the appellant and this fact was intentionally kept concealed by the appellant from the Court as the respondent was proceeded against ex parte which was subsequently set aside. It was pointed out that the petition could not be amended to be filed under Section 13 of the Act when on the date of hearing, the respondent was living with the appellant and this fact was intentionally kept concealed by the appellant from the Court as the respondent was proceeded against ex parte which was subsequently set aside. On merits, the wife-respondent stated that the allegation that the respondent ever asked the appellant to leave his parents house and to come to Panipat is false. She stated that it is most unbelievable that a wife would ask for such a thing in two months of her marriage to give up a most reputed job with handsome salaries and perks. She further stated that she performed all her matrimonial obligations efficiently and honestly and she never allowed her old mother-in- law to work in house and she cared for her illness and served her properly. The respondent denied that she ever left for Panipat on the pretext of examination of B.Ed. She further stated that she was ready and willing to go to the matrimonial home. 7. The appellant himself appeared as PW6, whereas his father appeared as PW8. The appellant also produced Thakur Dass as PW4, apart from PW-7 Smt. Veena Aggarwal, a neighbourer of the appellant. On the other hand, the respondent herself appeared as RW-1 and also produced her father Chander Parkash as RW-2. The respondent also produced one Ashu Lal Nagpal as RW-3, relation of the respondent and a Member of Panchayat taken to the house of the appellant. The parties had also produced some documents particularly the complaint under Section 406/398-A IPC and the orders passed thereon. 8. Learned trial Court dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage by finding that the appellant has failed to withdraw the petition under Section 9 of the Act on 28.1.1998 although there was a settlement between the parties on 7.1.1998. The case was adjourned to 28.2.1998 for ex parte evidence but still the appellant did not withdraw the petition. On 18.4.1998, the appellant moved an application for amendment of the petition which showed that the appellant was not sincere in his conduct. The other allegations of the appellant were also not found worthy of any credence. 9. The case was adjourned to 28.2.1998 for ex parte evidence but still the appellant did not withdraw the petition. On 18.4.1998, the appellant moved an application for amendment of the petition which showed that the appellant was not sincere in his conduct. The other allegations of the appellant were also not found worthy of any credence. 9. In the present appeal, Shri Arun Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the respondent has levelled false allegations in the complaint under Section 406/498-A IPC and she has also reiterated such allegations in her evidence and, thus, levelling of reckless allegations amounts to cruelty. The reference of the appellant was to the allegation in the complaint u/s 406/498-A IPC to the effect that some time the mother of the appellant used to sleep in between the respondent and that of her husband despite having several rooms in their house. It may be stated that the respondent has not levelled such allegations in the written statement nor the appellant has sought divorce on the ground that such allegations caused mental cruelty to him. The appellant had filed the amended petition after the respondent withdrew her complaint. The appellant made reference of the complaint in para 15 of the petition for dissolution of marriage but still no grievance was made in the petition for divorce. Therefore, I am unable to accept the argument of the appellant that such an allegation has caused mental cruelty. Even the appellant has not stated a word in his statement as PW6 to the effect that such allegation has caused mental cruelty to him. Therefore, in the absence of any pleading or the evidence, it is not open to the appellant to raise an argument merely on the basis of recital in the complaint. 10. The entire case of the appellant is based upon the allegations that the respondent wanted him to shift to Panipat to help her brother in the business. However, such contention is again devoid of any merit. The counsel for the appellant has made reference to the statement of the respondent as RW-1 wherein the respondent has accepted the suggestion that her father had started the business about 3-4 years prior to her marriage in the name of Harsh Textiles. However, such contention is again devoid of any merit. The counsel for the appellant has made reference to the statement of the respondent as RW-1 wherein the respondent has accepted the suggestion that her father had started the business about 3-4 years prior to her marriage in the name of Harsh Textiles. However, she denied the suggestion that she and her parents wanted the appellant to shift to Panipat to look after her fathers business. She stated that her father started the business to settle her brother who is about 18-19 years of age and was a college going student. She further stated that her father had obtained a loan from the bank in the name of Harsh Textile. From this, learned counsel for the appellant wanted to prove that the brother of the respondent was only about 16 years of age at the time of marriage and, therefore, it was necessary for the respondent and her parents to seek help of some male member to carry on the business as her father was not able to do the business being in government service. A reference to the statement of RW-2, Chander Prakash would show that he had stated that his son started business in Panipat in the year 1994. His son was about 19 years of age in the year 1994 having born in 1975. He was studying in B.A. Final at that time and was doing the business. He had taken a loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- in the name of Harsh Textile. The respondent and her father have denied the allegations of ever suggesting the appellant to shift to Panipat. Keeping in view the nature of evidence, produced by the parties, I am unable to accept the argument of the appellant that the respondent and her parents wanted the appellant to shift to Panipat. It is evident that the brother of the respondent was trying to settle a small business with a loan of Rs. 1,20,000/-. He was 19 years of age. The appellant is a Mechanical Engineer and was drawing a salary of Rs. 16,000/- per month. In these circumstances, the story concocted by the appellant that the respondent and her parents wanted the appellant to shift to Panipat lacks any credence and is not reliable. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the respondent is in the habit of making reckless allegations. 16,000/- per month. In these circumstances, the story concocted by the appellant that the respondent and her parents wanted the appellant to shift to Panipat lacks any credence and is not reliable. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the respondent is in the habit of making reckless allegations. It has been pointed out that in the complaint under Section 406/498-A of Indian Penal Code, she has stated that a demand of a scooter alongwith a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash was made, whereas, while appearing as a witness as RW-1, she has stated that the appellant had demanded a car. Apart from the fact that the appellant had not made such grievance in the petition for dissolution of marriage, the appellant even failed to confront the respondent with the allegations so made in the complaint. It was open to the respondent to explain such averments in the complaint. Having failed to confront the respondent with the averments made in the previous complaint, it is not open to the appellant to make any grievance of any variance in the allegations. However, a reading of the statements would, infact, show that there was a demand of dowry from the respondent and her family members. 12. Lastly, it was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the wife-respondent was aggrieved from doing menial work at matrimonial home. The respondent in her written statement stated that she had never shown any reluctance to do the menial job and she performed all her matrimonial obligations efficiently and honestly. Even in her statement, she has admitted that it is the duty ofevery daughter-in-law to do house-hold work. However, she has stated that they used to snatch roti from her. Thus, I am unable to accept the argument of the appellant that the respondent had shown any reluctance in doing the house-hold works. 13. It is further required to be noticed that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 406/498-A IPC. The said complaint was withdrawn by the respondent on 17.1.1998 when the parties entered into a compromise with the intervention of Lok Adalat. The Court passed the order to the effect that the parties have assured to live peacefully, and the complainant is satisfied with the assurance given by the accused persons. The said complaint was withdrawn by the respondent on 17.1.1998 when the parties entered into a compromise with the intervention of Lok Adalat. The Court passed the order to the effect that the parties have assured to live peacefully, and the complainant is satisfied with the assurance given by the accused persons. Inspite of the fact that the complaint was withdrawn on 17.1.1981, the appellant chose to continue with his petition for restitution of conjugal rights which came up for hearing on 18.1.1998. The dispute between the parties, after the withdrawal of the criminal complaint, arose only on 18.3.1998. Thus, it is evident that the appellant had no intention of settling the dispute between the parties even after the wife withdrew the complaint. Such conduct of the appellant shows that he wants to take benefit of his own wrongs. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon R. Balasubramanian v. Smt. Vijayalakshmi Balasubramanian, AIR 1999 SC 3070 to the effect that once the parties have settled their dispute then all previous acts of cruelty, even if it is presumed to be correct, stand condoned and the appellant can not seek dissolution of marriage on any of such allegation. I find that the stand of the respondent is tenable. There is no allegation of cruelty against the respondent after 7.1.1990 except to the extent that on 18.3.1998 she had left the matrimonial home. Keeping in view the said judgment, previous allegations of any cruelty, though not proved, can not be pressed by the appellant to seek dissolution of marriage. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar v. Sunanda, (2001) 4 SCC 125 to contend that if the person is attempting to take advantage of his own wrongs, then the Court is bound to refuse such relief in terms of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. In the present case, the appellant wants to take benefit of his own wrongs which is evident from his conduct and also the fact that he has levelled totally false allegations against the respondent that she and her parents wanted him to shift to Panipat to carry on the business along with her brother. In the present case, the appellant wants to take benefit of his own wrongs which is evident from his conduct and also the fact that he has levelled totally false allegations against the respondent that she and her parents wanted him to shift to Panipat to carry on the business along with her brother. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Smt. Abha Agarwal v. Sunil Agarwal, AIR 2000 Allahabad 377 and Smt. Surbhi Agrawal v. Sanjay Agrawal, AIR 2000 Madhya Pradesh 139 which are clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case keeping in view the findings recorded above. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the findings recoded by learned trial Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.