Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 421 (PNJ)

Rachhpal Singh v. Balwinder Kaur

2003-03-12

VINEY MITTAL

body2003
ORDER Viney Mittal, J. - The present appeal has been filed by Rachhpal Singh appellant challenging the judgment dated December 19, 2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala whereby his petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties, hereinafter, shall be referred to as the husband and wife. 3. The husband has filed petition under Section 9 of the Act which the averments that he was married to the wife on April 6, 1974. They lived together as husband and wife. Out of the wedlock two sons, namely, Bhavanjit Singh and Manpreet Singh were born on September 25, 1977 and September 20, 1978, respectively. After that, the husband left India in 1981 for Mozambique for better earnings. He averred that he had been sending a monthly allowance of Rs. 500/- per month to the wife. Thereafter, he came back to India and lived with the wife. In the year 1984, the husband again left for Doha Qutar. It is further claimed that even from that place he was sending the due amount to the wife and his minor sons for their maintenance. When the husband was away to Doha Qutar, then the only brother of the wife died. The wife shifted to her parental village Rangian to live with her parents. When the husband came back, he brought her back to her own house. However, after a few days, she left his company without any reasonable cause on the pretext that her parents could not live without her. It is further claimed by the husband that the wife also refused to account for the money which he had sent periodically to her, which actually amounted to Rs. 2 lacs. The husband also had to take care of his minor sons and to send them to school. In the year 1992, the husband against left for Dubai leaving his minor sons under the care of his mother. While in school, the wife used to meet them off and on. It is further averred in the petition that through police pressure the wife took Rs. 38,500/- as Chakota for the land of the husband from his brothers for the year 1994-95. While in school, the wife used to meet them off and on. It is further averred in the petition that through police pressure the wife took Rs. 38,500/- as Chakota for the land of the husband from his brothers for the year 1994-95. In the month of May, 1994, when the husband came to know about this fact, he came back of India in July 1994. He met the wife and protested against the aforesaid receiving of Chakota through police pressure. On that basis, the husband maintained that he requested the wife also to return back to the matrimonial home but she refused and even took away the minor sons along with her. 4. On that basis, the present petition has been filed. 5. On receipt of the notice, the wife appeared before the learned trial court. She contested the petition by filing a written statement. Various pleas raised by the husband were contested. She averred that the husband had completely refused to maintain her and her minor children and, therefore, she had to take recourse to proceedings for grant of maintenance which were stated to be pending. The petition under Section 9 of the Act was stated to be a counter-blast to the aforesaid proceedings. It was specifically averred by the wife that the husband had neglected her since the year 1991. He had neither paid any maintenance to her nor had informed her about his whereabouts/address. She was only receiving Rs. 500/- per month. It is admitted by her that in the month of August 1987, her only brother died. However, later on in the month of December, the husband came back from Doha Qutar and she same back and resided with him. However, at that point of time, she was pressurised to bring money, of her share, from her father because the husband was to marry his own sister. It is further averred by the wife that the husband had started raising demand of Rs. 1 lac. When the wife refused then she was maltreated and beaten mercilessly and broke her left leg. The wife has further detailed out the maltreatment given to her by the husband. 6. It is further averred by the wife that the husband had started raising demand of Rs. 1 lac. When the wife refused then she was maltreated and beaten mercilessly and broke her left leg. The wife has further detailed out the maltreatment given to her by the husband. 6. The trial Judge after appreciation of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that it was the husband who had withdrawn himself from the society of wife without any reasonable cause and that he had neither paid any maintenance to her nor disclosed his whereabouts since 1991. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the husband. The husband has now felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal before this Court. 7. I have heard Shri N.S. Virk, the learned counsel for the appellant-husband and Shri J.S. Chahal, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife and with their assistance have also gone through the record. 8. Shri N.S. Virk, the learned counsel for the appellant-husband has submitted that there was no justification for the wife to live separately when the husband was fully prepared to keep and maintain the wife and the children. 9. On the other hand, Shri J.S. Chahal, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that the evidence on record was sufficient to prove that it was the husband who had always been neglecting the wife and had withdrawn himself from her society. Shri Chahal has further pointed out the statement of RW2 Manpreet Singh, who is the son of the parties. In the aforesaid statement, Manpreet Singh has categorically supported the maltreatment given by the husband to the wife and also the fact that it was the husband who had deserted the wife without any reasonable cause. 10. From the detailed circumstances available on the record, it is apparent that the husband is merely wanting the decree of divorce with a view to seek ultimate divorce, on the basis of the aforesaid decree. It is also apparent that the present petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights was not bonafide. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the present appeal which is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.