Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 361 (PNJ)

Des Raj v. Pushpa Wati

2003-02-26

J.S.NARANG

body2003
JUDGMENT J.S. Narang, J. - Both the spouses got married on June 12, 1979 at Ambala according to Hindu religious rites. The marriage was duly consummated and resultantly a son was born from this wedlock on April 24, 1980. The petitioner i.e. husband has filed the petition under Section 13(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for seeking a divorce by way of dissolution of the marriage. The plea set up is that the wife has strange habits and is of different temperament and does not give him proper respect. Resultantly, the relations between the two have become strained. It has been averred that she left the matrimonial home somewhere after the birth of the child and that a petition had been filed by her for judicial separation at Ambala and that the said petition was decreed vide judgment dated October 4, 1980. Earlier, a similar petition had been filed at Patiala but the same was dismissed vide order dated October 9, 1982 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The order was challenged by way of appeal before this Court which was also dismissed. Another petition was filed at Ludhiana which was again dismissed on same ground and the order was again challenged before this Court which was also dismissed. The wife filed an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code which was disposed of by way of compromise vide order dated 16.10.1986. It is alleged that on October 11, 1986, both the spouses had come to village Gardhiwala and the petitioner tried to persuade her to get herself transferred to district Hoshiarpur as the petitioner was also posted in District Jail, Hoshiarpur. The respondent-wife had agreed but later on refused to file an application for seeking transfer to Hoshiarpur on the premises that her parents did not agree for her transfer and to the contrary she suggested that the petitioner should get himself transferred to Ambala. This, ultimately made the relations strained between the two and the present petition has been filed. 2. The respondent filed the written statement and contested the pleas of the petitioner. However, she has admitted the factum of marriage and the previous litigation stated to have been filed between the parties. She has alleged that in fact she had never been treated well by the petitioner and that differences arose between them. 2. The respondent filed the written statement and contested the pleas of the petitioner. However, she has admitted the factum of marriage and the previous litigation stated to have been filed between the parties. She has alleged that in fact she had never been treated well by the petitioner and that differences arose between them. A compromise was effected between them on 24.8.1986 and in pursuant thereto she lived with the petitioner upto November 1986. It is alleged that the petitioner did not like to share her company and withdraw himself from her company. She has emphatically stated that she is ready and willing to live with the petitioner. Upon the pleadings of the parties issues have been struck and the evidence has been led by both the parties apart from the fact that they have stepped into witness box themselves for supporting their pleadings. The petitioner has not been able to bring only direct evidence in support of the allegations of cruelty alleged against the respondent. The only plea which has been taken is that the respondent has withdrawn from his company/society without any reasonable cause, which has caused mental cruelty to him as he has been denied the conjugal rights. However, it has been admitted that the respondent had filed some petition for judicial separation which was allowed and thereafter present petition had been filed in the jurisdiction of Patiala Courts which was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction and that the said order was upheld right upto this Court. It has also been admitted that a compromise was effected between the parties copy of which has been exhibited as Ex. P1 and thereafter both the spouses lived together. It is alleged that it was thereafter that the respondent again deserted the petitioner which gave a fresh cause of action and the present petition has been filed. The respondent in fact had given the assurance that if necessary she would give up service or she would get herself transferred at the place of posting of the petitioner. It is on these premises the application for maintenance had been withdrawn on 6.10.1986 after the respective statements of the parties had been recorded. The petitioner has admitted that he has been coming back to Gardhiwala everyday after attending to his job. It is on these premises the application for maintenance had been withdrawn on 6.10.1986 after the respective statements of the parties had been recorded. The petitioner has admitted that he has been coming back to Gardhiwala everyday after attending to his job. He has also admitted that he never ever gave any money to his son and that he did not send any maintenance for the child. It has been noticed by the trial Court that the husband made a categorical statement on August 21, 1989 that he was not ready to keep the respondent with him even if she gets herself transferred to Hoshiarpur. He has further stated that he would keep her only if she resigned from her job. 3. On the other hand, the respondent has stated that she had made all best possible efforts to remain with her husband. She has stated that it was in December, 1989 the mother of the respondent and the brothe-in-law (husbands younger brother) went to Gardhiwala to live the respondent in the house of the petitioner. The petitioner had also boarded the same bus with them but on the way he alighted from the bus and never came to Gardhiwala. Resultantly they had to spend the night in the house of the brother of the petitioner. The respondent has emphatically denied that any kind of Panchayat had been brought by the petitioner for settlement. The mother of the respondent has also appeared as RW2 and has stated that she would be even now ready to send her daughter to live with the petitioner. The respondent has categorically stated that after recording of the statements of the parties in the proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code a compromise was effected and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. It is further stated that she had made every time an effort to settle the matter so that both husband and wife can live together peacefully and happily but no such effort had come from the petitioner. She has produced some letters which have been exhibited from Exs. R1 to R4 and that the said letters are shown to have been posted from Gardhiwala which corroborates the fact that she was residing at Garhdiwala with an effort to live peacefully in her matrimonial home. 4. She has produced some letters which have been exhibited from Exs. R1 to R4 and that the said letters are shown to have been posted from Gardhiwala which corroborates the fact that she was residing at Garhdiwala with an effort to live peacefully in her matrimonial home. 4. After considering the respective evidence of the parties, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and the same has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated April 16, 1990. 5. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree the present appeal has been filed. 6. During the pendency of the appeal numerous efforts had been made for bringing reconciliation between the parties. The case was put up before the Lok Adalat and the efforts for reconciliation for living together or for divorce by mutual consent failed and the appeal was returned to the Registry of this Court vide order dated January 4, 2001. An effect was made by this Court as well by calling the parties to come present to settle the dispute but the efforts brought no tangible result. The perusal of the evidence brought on record and keeping in view that the male child born from this wedlock who is 22 years old today, it shall be absolutely unfair to separate the husband and wife. Apart from this, keeping in view the evidence brought on record, in fact no case is made out under Section 13(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act for granting divorce to the petitioner-appellant. The cumulative effect of reading the evidence shows that the wife has been making an effort to keep her matrimonial home on the track and that the husband has been hell bent of tracking the marriage but the reasons have not been spelt out cogently and succinctly. Resultantly, I find no reason to interfere in the judgment and decree dated 16.4.1990 by which the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.