Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 809 (PNJ)

Sadhu Singh v. Bhupinder Singh

2003-05-24

VINEY MITTAL

body2003
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - Sadhu Singh-husband is in appeal before the Court. Sadhu Singh had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of his marriage with Bhupinder Kaur-wife (hereinafter the parties would be referred as "husband" and "wife") in the judgment. He claimed that the marriage between the parties was solemnised in the month of April, 1998. The husband and wife co-habited together and son Navjot was born from the wedlock. The husband alleged that the wife had left his company and the matrimonial home about five years prior to the date of filing of the petition (which was filed on March 7, 1998) and as such had deserted him with an intention never to rehabilitate herself in the matrimonial home. The husband further claimed that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. She had filed an application under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the grant of permanent maintenance allowance and had refused to come back. 2. The husband alleged that the treatment of the wife has always been harsh towards the husband and she always insulting him in the presence of his relatives. The mother of the husband had become very old, but the wife also treated her harshly. He further claimed that the wife had dragged the husband in false litigation and had got warrants of arrest issued against him. It was also alleged that she has been levelling false allegations and had called the police a number of times. Proceedings under sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") were also initiated against the husband by the wife. 3. Thus claiming desertion by the wife and cruelty by her, the marriage was sought to be dissolved by filing a petition for divorce. 4. The wife contested the petition by filing a written statement. All the averments made in the divorce petition were denied by her. She admitted the birth of the son Navjot but claimed that in fact it was the husband who had deserted her and had treated her with cruelty. She maintained that she had always been treating the husband and his mother with respect but they were not satisfied because of the insufficiency of dowry. They had been demanding a colour television. The parents of the wife had given a sum of Rs. She maintained that she had always been treating the husband and his mother with respect but they were not satisfied because of the insufficiency of dowry. They had been demanding a colour television. The parents of the wife had given a sum of Rs. 13,000/- in cash to the husband for the purchase of a colour television and at the time of birth of the son, the parents of the wife had spent an amount of Rs. 40,000/- but neither the husband nor his mother were satisfied. 5. The wife further maintained that in fact the husband was in the habit of taking excessive liquor and under the influence of alcohol he used to abuse the wife and her family members. In fact his behaviour with the wife was always cruel. 6. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. The husband produced PR1 Gurdev Singh, PW2 Ishwar Chander, PW3 Gurmit Lal, PW4 Sat Narain, PW5 Yog Raj Bedi and appeared himself as PW6. He also produced a copy of the complaint Ex. PW3/A. 7. As opposed to this, the respondent-wife examined Rajinder Singh RW1, Jagdev Singh RW2 and the herself stepped into the witness box as RW3. She further produced on record Ex. R3/A, a copy of order dated March 16, 1996, Ex. R4 a copy of the plaint, Ex. R5 to Ex. R7 copies of the orders dated May 12, 1997 and March 4, 1997, respectively. Ex. R7 and Ex. R9 are copies of the jamabandies. The trial court after taking into consideration the entire evidence led by the parties, found that the allegations levelled by the husband were not proved. Nothing was shown that the wife had ever treated him with cruelty. Even the claim of the husband with regard to the wife having deserted him was negated. 8. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge vide his judgment December 16, 2000 dismissed the petition. 9. The husband is aggrieved and has approached this court through the present appeal challenging the judgment of the learned trial Judge." 10. I have heard Shri D.S. Brar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband and Shri R.K. Girdhar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 11. The husband is aggrieved and has approached this court through the present appeal challenging the judgment of the learned trial Judge." 10. I have heard Shri D.S. Brar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband and Shri R.K. Girdhar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 11. Shri D.S. Brar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has submitted that in fact the ground of cruelty on which the divorce was sought by the husband was duly proved inasmuch as it was shown that the wife had initiated the proceedings under sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further that she had been ill-treating the husband as well as his mother. 12. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Girdhar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has maintained that nothing has been shown that the aforesaid proceedings under sections 107/151 were motivated or were the result of any design on behalf of the respondent-wife. With regard to the said ill- treatment of the wife with the husband and his mother, Shri Girdhar has submitted that in fact there was nothing to show on record that the wife had ever treated husband or his mother with any dis-respect. 13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find that the present petition deserves to fail being without merit. 14. As far as the proceedings under sections 107/151 of the Code initiated against the husband are concerned, the husband has admitted in his cross- examination that the wife and her brother had man-handled him. Though he had denied the fact that he also tried to cause injuries to the wife but it is apparent that there was some quarrel between the parties and, therefore, the proceedings under sections 107/151 Code were initiated by the police. 15. The learned trial Judge has also noticed another fact. Prior to the filing of the present petition, a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the husband on December 22, 1993. A copy of the aforesaid petition is Ex. R3 on the record. The husband had claimed restitution of conjugal rights. However, the aforesaid petition was subsequently withdrawn by the husband while making a statement dated May 12, 1997. A copy of the statement is Ex. A copy of the aforesaid petition is Ex. R3 on the record. The husband had claimed restitution of conjugal rights. However, the aforesaid petition was subsequently withdrawn by the husband while making a statement dated May 12, 1997. A copy of the statement is Ex. R6 on the record and the consequential order passed by the learned trial Judge in that case is Ex. R5. Nothing has been shown on the record or any explanation furnished as to why the said petition has been withdrawn by the husband. 16. Even the maintenance amount granted to the wife and her minor son vide order dated March 4, 1997 was not paid. In fact copy of order dated August 2, 1997 Ex. P2 shows that the husband had not made the payment and, therefore conditional warrants of his arrest were issued by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the execution proceedings. 17. It is, thus, apparent that the wife had to resort to the litigation with the husband out of compulsions. 18. RW1 Rajinder Singh and RW2 Jagdev Singh have specifically deposed that they had accompanied the wife and her father in the form of Panchayat and requested the husband to rehabilitate the wife but he had flatly refused till his demand of Rs. 50,000/- was not with. 19. Taking into consideration the totality of the aforesaid circumstances, the learned trial Judge had come to a specific finding that the husband was not entitled to the dissolution of his marriage inasmuch as none of the grounds set up by him stood proved. Nothing has been shown proved that the said findings recorded by the learned trial Judge were in any manner erroneous or are contrary to the record. 20. In the earlier portion of the judgment, I have already noticed the evidence recorded by the parties and find that the husband has not been able to prove the grounds for divorce as pleaded by him. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is without merit and the same is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.