Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 576 (PNJ)

Virender Kumar @ Virender Singh v. Santro Devi

2003-04-23

V.M.JAIN

body2003
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This appeal has been filed by the husband against the wife challenging the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, vide which the decree for divorce was granted in favour of the wife and against the husband. 2. The facts in brief are that Smt. Santro Devi-wife on 10.8.1998 had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against her husband, Virender Kumar, seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. In the petition, it was alleged that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 15.1.1996 and that out of the said wedlock no child was born. It was alleged that the behaviour of the husband and his family members towards her was cruel and humiliating since the inception of marriage and that he and his family members used to tease and taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry. It was alleged that he had started raising demand for Hero Honda Motor Cycle and cash of Rs. 10,000/- and also called had names to her parents and also gave her beatings and she had to remain without food for not bringing sufficient dowry. It was alleged that her husband left her at her parents house 5 days after the marriage. It was alleged that when she told the entire story to her father, her father requested her husband and his family members not to behave like this but their attitude remained unchanged and further a demand of Rs. 30,000/- was made for purchase of plot, whereupon, her father gave Rs. 25,000/- to the father of her husband, but the plot was purchased in the name of her mother-in-law and thereupon her husband agreed to bring her with him and consequently, he brought her to the matrimonial home in June, 1996. It was alleged that his behaviour and the behaviour of his family members became more cruel this time and she was asked by him to bring motor cycle from her parents. It was alleged that he and his family members gave beatings to her and also taunted her for not bringing motor cycle. It was alleged that his behaviour and the behaviour of his family members became more cruel this time and she was asked by him to bring motor cycle from her parents. It was alleged that he and his family members gave beatings to her and also taunted her for not bringing motor cycle. It was alleged that she remained in her matrimonial home for 4 months and during this period her life became a hell and ultimately her husband left her outside her parents village in three clothes in the month of October, 1996 saying that she would not be allowed to come without motorcycle and Rs. 10,000/- in cash. It was alleged that her father convened various Panchayats but her husband refused to keep her with him as his wife and was adamant on the demand of motorcycle and cash of Rs. 10,000/- for which her father showed his inability. It was alleged that her husband and his family members kept the dowry articles and istridhan with them illegally and also refused to return the same on demand, whereupon she lodged FIR No. 133 under Sections 323/306/398-A/506/34 IPC in Police Station, Kalayat against her husband and other members of the family and the said case is still pending in the Court of JMIC Kathal. It was alleged that her husband and his family members had treated her with cruelty and her life was in danger in her matrimonial home. It was accordingly prayed that the marriage between the parties be dissolved by a decree of divorce. 3. In the written statement, various allegations made in the divorce petition, were controverted. It was denied that the husband and other family members had ever asked her to bring motorcycle and/or cash of Rs. 10,000/- as alleged or that they had ever taunted/teased or beaten or kept her without food on that account. It was also denied that he had ever left her at her parents village. It was alleged that in fact, she was under the influence of her mother and father and that she used to misbehave with the parents, and other members of her husbands family and never showed respect to the elders or love to the youngers. It was alleged that she had insulted her husband many a times and refused to prepare meals etc. for him. It was alleged that she had insulted her husband many a times and refused to prepare meals etc. for him. It was alleged that she had gone to visit her parents house in routine after 5 days of the marriage but had not come back due to the instigation of her parents and it was only after repeated efforts were made by him and his parents that she joined his company in the month of June, 1996. It is denied that Rs. 30,000/- were demanded or that her father gave Rs. 25,000/- as alleged. It was alleged that in fact, his mother had purchased a plot, vide Sale Deed dated 9.12.1996 for Rs. 6,000/- out of Rs. 25,000/- received by his father from LIC on 6.11.1996 under Money Back Policy. It was denied that he had ever mal-treated her or had ever given her beatings or had raised any demand for motorcycle and cash or that he had left her in her parents village in October, 1996, as alleged. It was alleged that in fact, in October, 1996, her brother had taken her to her parents house and thereafter, she never came back, inspite of various efforts made by him and his father. It was alleged that false case was got registered against them under Section 498-A IPC etc. Other allegations made in the petition, were denied and it was prayed that the petition be dismissed. 4. After recording the evidence and hearing both sides, the learned Additional District Judge, granted a decree for divorce in favour of wife and against the husband, holding that the husband had caused cruelty to the wife. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the husband has filed the present appeal in this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before me that the learned Additional District Judge, erred in law in holding that the appellant-husband caused cruelty to the respondent-wife, entitling her to a decree of divorce. It was submitted that in the petition, the allegations were made that the demand for a motorcycle and Rs. 10,000/- in cash was made by the husband whereas during evidence, it was alleged that the demand for motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- cash was made, which is a serious contradiction. It was submitted that in the petition, the allegations were made that the demand for a motorcycle and Rs. 10,000/- in cash was made by the husband whereas during evidence, it was alleged that the demand for motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- cash was made, which is a serious contradiction. It has further been submitted that the allegations with regard to demand of Rs. 30,000/- cash and payment of Rs. 25,000/- by her father, is also not proved on the record and so far as the purchase of the plot is concerned, the same was purchased out of the money received by the father of the appellant from the LIC under the Money Back Policy. It has further been submitted that with regard to the lodging of the FIR under Section 498-A IPC, the matter was still pending before the Judicial Magistrate and it was not proved on the record that the appellant had ever caused cruelty to the wife. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife submitted before me that the learned Additional District Judge, had rightly granted the decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 7. made by the learned counsel for the appellant-husband. As referred to above, in the divorce petition, it was alleged by the respondent-wife that the appellant-husband had raised a demand, for Hero Honda Motorcycle and Rs. 10,000/- in cash and on her failure to meet the demand, she was given merciless beatings and had to remain without food. It was further alleged that subsequently, Rs. 30,000/- were demanded for purchase of plot and her father gave Rs. 25,000/- to the father of her husband but the father of her husband had purchased the plot in the name of his wife (respondent-wifes mother-in-law). During evidence, Smt. Santro Devi (wife), deposed that her husband had demanded Hero Honda Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. She further stated that subsequently, her father gave Rs. 25,000/- to her father- in-law and at that time he had promised that the plot would be purchased in her name i.e. in the name of Smt. Santro Devi, but the plot was purchased in the name of her mother-in-law, namely Mali Devi. During cross-examination, she stated that at the time when she filed the petition, she had told her counsel that the demand was for Hero Honda Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/-. During cross-examination, she stated that at the time when she filed the petition, she had told her counsel that the demand was for Hero Honda Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/-. Similarly when Kartar Singh, father of Santro Devi, appeared in the witness box, he stated that the demand was made for Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash and that he had paid Rs. 25,000/- to Virender Kumar (husband) and it was promised that the plot would be purchased in the name of Santro Devi, but it was purchased in the name of mother of Virender Kumar. During cross- examination, he stated that he could not tell the date of purchase of the plot but the same was purchased either in August or September, 1996. He stated that he had told their counsel at the time of the filing of the petition that the demand was for Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. PW3 Mohinder Singh deposed that Smt. Santro Devi told her parents about the demand for Hero Honda Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash and that her father had paid Rs. 25,000/-. 8. As referred to above, in the divorce petition, it was alleged by the respondent-wife that the demand was for Motorcycle and Rs. 10,000/- in cash and that subsequent Rs. 30,000/- were demanded for a plot and her father gave Rs. 25,000/- to her father-in-law and the plot was purchased in the name of her mother-in-law. However, during evidence, it was alleged that the demand was for Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. In my opinion, it is not possible to re-concile the allegations made by the wife in the divorce petition with the evidence led by her in support of these allegations. On the other hand, this would show that a story was concocted with regard to demand of Motorcycle and Rs. 10,000/- in cash while filing the divorce petition. During evidence the story given was that besides Motorcycle, Rs. 50,000/- in cash were demanded. Furthermore, in the divorce petition, it was alleged that Rs. 30,000/- were demanded for plot, whereas during evidence, no specific allegation was made that a separate demand for Rs. 30,000/- was made for purchasing a plot. On other hand, it was mentioned that from the very beginning Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash, were demanded. 9. Furthermore, in the divorce petition, it was alleged that Rs. 30,000/- were demanded for plot, whereas during evidence, no specific allegation was made that a separate demand for Rs. 30,000/- was made for purchasing a plot. On other hand, it was mentioned that from the very beginning Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash, were demanded. 9. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, no reliance, whatsoever, could be placed on the evidence led by the wife with regard cruelty caused to her by her husband and his family members on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of Motorcycle and Rs. 10,000/- in cash, especially when the evidence led by her is discrepant and cannot be relied upon. 10. With regard to the demand of Rs. 30,000/-, in the petition, it was alleged that Rs. 25,000/- were paid by her father but the plot was purchased in the name of her mother-in-law. In the petition it was alleged that Rs. 25,000/- were paid to the father of Virender Kumar (husband). PW1, Santro Devi also stated during evidence that her father gave Rs. 25,000/- to the father of her husband. However, when her father, Kartar Singh appeared in the witness box as PW2, he stated that he had paid Rs. 25,000/- to Virender Kumar (husband). Again this discrepancy would go a long way to show that evidence led by the wife is not worthy of any relevance. Furthermore, it has nowhere been stated either in the petition or during evidence as to when the demand for Rs. 30,000/- was made for purchasing a plot and when her father had given Rs. 25,000/- either to Virender Kumar or his father. On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence led by the wife in this regard, besides examining oral evidence, her husband had also produced official witnesses to prove that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to Ram Kishan, father of Virender Kumar, in November, 1996 by the LIC under Money Back Policy and that the said amount was deposited in the Bank account of Ram Kishan on 7.11.1996 and that on 9.12.1996 Sale Deed Exhibit R-4 was registered in the name of Smt. Mali Devi wife of Ram Kishan, with regard to purchase of a piece of land for Rs. 6,000/-. 6,000/-. Thus, the plot having been purchased by the father of present appellant, Virender Kumar out of the money received by him from the LIC under the Money Back Policy, a false story was put forth by the wife that Rs. 25,000/- has been paid by her father to her father-in-law for the purchase of the plot and the plot was purchased in the name of her mother-in-law. This story was cooked up to match with the receipt of Rs. 25,000/- received by her father-in-law from the LIC towards the Money Back Policy and the purchase of a plot in the name of her mother-in-law subsequent thereto. In my opinion, on the basis of the evidence led by the wife, it could not be said that any of the allegations made by her in the petition stand proved on the record. As referred to above, the oral evidence led by the wife would not be sufficient to hold that her husband had treated her with cruelty entitling her to seek dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce. This is especially so when it is proved on the record that no reliance, whatsoever, could be placed either on her testimony or testimony of her father and another witness, Mohinder Singh, examined by her to prove her case. 11. Mere lodging of an FIR under Section 498-A IPC against her husband and other members of the family, in my opinion, would not be enough to hold that her husband had treated her with cruelty entitling her to seek the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. This is especially so, when the matter was still pending before the JMIC at the time when the divorce petition was filed. 12. In view the detailed discussion above, in my opinion, the learned trial Court had erred in law in deciding Issue No. 1 in favour of the wife and holding that the ground of cruelty was proved in her favour. Accordingly, I reverse the finding of the Trial Court on Issue No. 1. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 1.9.2000 passed by the Trial Court are set aside and the divorce petition filed by the wife is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Appeal allowed.