Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 218 (PNJ)

Gurmit Singh v. Veerpal Kaur

2003-02-05

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed by Gurmit Singh (husband) against the judgment and decree dated 2.8.1999, vide which his petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Abohar. 2. In his petition, the appellant alleged that his marriage with the respondent, Veer- pal Kaur (wife), was solemnised in the year 1994. In the year 1996, a male child as born from this wed-lock. It was alleged that the respondent is a hot tampered lady and just after about four months of the marriage, she started insulting the appellant and his parents. It was further alleged that she had been insisting that the land belonging to his brother, namely Gurbir Singh, who is issueless, should be transferred in the name of her son. When the demands of the respondent were not fulfilled, she left the matrimonial house on 30.8.1996 and took away all the valuable articles and clothes with her. The appellant further alleged that when he alongwith his parents and Panchayat of the respectables of the village visited the house of respondent to bring her back, the respondent refused to resume to co-habitation and insulted him and his parents. The respondent and her parents also repeated their demands for transfer of agriculture land owned by the aforesaid Gurbir Singh in the name of the son of the parties. The brother of the appellant did not agree for the same, thereupon, the respondent refused to join the matrimonial home. 3. Pursuant to the notice, respondent appeared and contested the aforesaid petition filed by the appellant and denied the allegations levelled by him. She pleaded that the appellant and other members of his family used to maltreat her in order to pressurise her to bring more dowry. On 7.9.1996, she was beaten by the appellant, his mother and sister and thereafter, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. In this regard, she lodged an FIR with the police. She pleaded that the appellant and his family members were demanding Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. On 7.9.1996, she was beaten by the appellant, his mother and sister and thereafter, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. In this regard, she lodged an FIR with the police. She pleaded that the appellant and his family members were demanding Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. She has further pleaded that her parents had taken Panchayat consisting of the respectables to persuade the appellant to keep and maintain her and her minor son, but the appellant and his parents refused to keep and maintain them. Thereupon, she was compelled to file application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It has also been pleaded that the petition under Section 9 of the Act has been filed by the appellant as a counter-blast to the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent against him. 4. The learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties and hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant while holding that the appellant was responsible for the separation of the wife as he caused injuries to her and did not make any effort to pacify her and bring her back to the matrimonial home. Instead of making efforts for rapprochement, he filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act with intent to save himself from criminal case launched against him under Section 325 IPC. It was held that the appellant was not sincere and he did not make any sincere effort to bring back the respondent to the matrimonial home. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence led by the appellant and has drawn wrong conclusion from the same. The learned trial court has been wrongly influenced by the fact that an FIR under Section 325 IPC was lodged by the respondent and the said prosecution is pending against the appellant and his family members. He submitted that the respondent-wife is in habit of making false complaints against the appellant and his family members and the appellant has established this fact by bringing on record the various complaints made to the police officials and the reports submitted by them which are Ex.A2 to Ex.A4. In these reports, if was found that the respondent is making false allegations against the appellant and his family members. In these reports, if was found that the respondent is making false allegations against the appellant and his family members. He further submitted that the learned trial court has not considered all these documents and dismissed the petition on the grounds which are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also submitted that the learned trial court itself has observed that the isolated incident of the beating on which FIR was lodged does not constitute the sufficient cause for withdrawal from the society of the husband. Even after recording the said findings, the learned trial court dismissed the petition of the appellant. Learned counsel further argued that the appellant is entitled for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights and there was and is no sufficient cause available to the respondent to remain away from the matrimonial home of the appellant. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. He submitted that from the evidence on record, it has clearly been established that the respondent was having a sufficient cause for withdrawing from the society of the appellant and he had filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act as a counter blast and to save himself from the criminal proceedings initiated against him at the instance of the respondent. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the present appeal. According to the evidence available on the record, both the parties lived together upto August, 1996. As per the allegation of the appellant, the respondent left the matrimonial home on 30.8.1996, whereas the respondent has pleaded that she was turned out of the house on 7.9.1996. The lodging of the FIR against the appellant by the respondent has not been disputed. In the FIR, the respondent has alleged that she was given beating by the appellant and his family members and was turned out of the matrimonial home on 7.9.1996. That criminal case is still pending against the appellant. 8. The learned trial court, on the basis of evidence, has found that the appellant did not try to bring back the respondent to the matrimonial home. That criminal case is still pending against the appellant. 8. The learned trial court, on the basis of evidence, has found that the appellant did not try to bring back the respondent to the matrimonial home. His averment in the Court and his statement in the Court to the effect that he took the Panchayat to the village of the respondent and tried his best to bring back her to the matrimonial home was not believed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any irregularity or mis-reading of any evidence in recording the aforesaid finding by the trial Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the respondent was having sufficient cause for remaining away from the matrimonial home and the society of the appellant. Once a wife is turned out of the matrimonial home after giving beating, she herself cannot come to her matrimonial home until and unless a sincere effort is made by the husband to bring her back. It appears that the appellant has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Act with an oblique motive to create defence and to save himself from the criminal prosecution launched against him by the respondent. I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is hereby dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-.