Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 269 (PNJ)

Pushpa Devi v. Amar Chand

2003-02-12

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - Wife has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing her petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.6.1976. Four children were born out of the wedlock i.e. two sons and two daughters. It is admitted that one daughter has since been married. It is also admitted that all the three children are now being maintained by husband. 3. The appellant has sought dissolution of marriage on the ground that the respondent has treated her with cruelty. He has levelled false allegations of adultery. Such allegations have caused danger to the life and limb of the appellant and, therefore, she sought dissolution of marriage. 4. On the other hand, the respondent controverted the allegations and stated that there is no ground for dissolution of marriage. In fact, address mentioned in the petition is also not correct as she is residing in village Sehjowal near Santokhgarh at the brick kiln of one Mohinder Paul. It was further submitted that she left the matrimonial home on 12.3.1996 with one Paras Ram, cousin of the husband who is inimical towards him. It is further stated that Paras Ram had made complaint against him under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on 25.8.1995 which was dismissed on 12.3.1996 being false and fabricated. It is further alleged that the present petition has been filed at the instance of said Paras Ram. 5. Appellant-Pushpa Devi has appeared before the trial court as PW3 and produced PW1 Ram Lubhaya as well as PW2 Kulwant Kaur. On the other hand, respondent appeared as RW1 and produced Ramji Dass, Ex-member Panchayat as RW2. The learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage. It is the said judgment which is impugned by the appellant before this Court in the present appeal. 6. It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the behaviour of the husband towards her from the beginning was cruel as he used to beat and maltreat her under the influence of liquor. The husband has levelled allegations that she was unchaste and has illicit relations with Paras Ram. 6. It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the behaviour of the husband towards her from the beginning was cruel as he used to beat and maltreat her under the influence of liquor. The husband has levelled allegations that she was unchaste and has illicit relations with Paras Ram. In complaint filed by Paras Ram under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the respondent has stated that the appellant was found in compromising position with Paras Ram. Wife and Ram Lubhaya PW2 has also deposed to this effect. It is apparent that the allegation of unchastity was made by the husband and he used to maltreat the appellant. This would amount to cruelty towards the appellant. 7. On the other hand, it was submitted that the appellant has not produced Paras Ram to prove the complaint made by him or to prove that the allegations of illicit relations were false. It is further submitted that he is ready and willing to rehabilitate her. It was further argued by the counsel for the respondent that the wife had appeared as witness in a complaint filed by Paras Ram against him which shows the suspicion of the respondent. A photo copy of the judgment in the criminal complaint filed by Paras Ram is on record as marked A. The passing of the said judgment has not been disputed by any of the parties. The learned trial Court has also considered the said judgment and drawn the adverse inference against the appellant for not producing Paras Ram. However, I am unable to agree with the finding returned by the learned trial court in this aspect. The acquittal of the husband in criminal case filed by Paras Ram and the testimony of the appellant against the respondent rather shows that the relations between the parties are not cordial. It also shows that the husband has levelled allegations which he has not proved. Therefore, the said judgment will in fact advance the cause of the appellant to the effect that the respondent has levelled allegations which are not found true. Thus, levelling of false allegations itself amounts to cruelty. 8. The statement of the appellant is corroborated in this aspect by Ram Lubhaya, PW1 and Kulwant Kaur, PW2. Both of them stated that the husband used to treat the appellant with cruelty. Thus, levelling of false allegations itself amounts to cruelty. 8. The statement of the appellant is corroborated in this aspect by Ram Lubhaya, PW1 and Kulwant Kaur, PW2. Both of them stated that the husband used to treat the appellant with cruelty. Their testimony has been discarded on wholly untenable grounds. The appellant is working for Kulwant Kaur. The trial court found that Kulwant Kaur under these circumstances was bound to support the appellant. However, I am unable to agree with such reasoning. Kulwant Kaur has no enmity against the respondent. There is no other infirmity in her statement when she deposed against the conduct of the respondent. 9. Another fact which cannot be ignored is that the wife has approached the Court for dissolution of marriage. In our society, the females are oppressed and, generally, they do not approach the Courts for redressal of their grievances. There has to be something very strong which compelled wife to seek dissolution of marriage. In view of the above, I find that the view taken by the learned trial Court suffers from material illegality and irregularity. The said judgment is not the possible view in law. Consequently, I set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and allow the petition for dissolution of marriage between the parties. Petition allowed.