Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 308 (PNJ)

Dharam Singh v. Om Patti

2004-03-17

V.M.JAIN

body2004
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the petitioner husband challenging the judgment and decree dated 9.5.1990 passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge dismissing his petition for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce filed by him against the respondent wife. 2. On 18.5.1989, Dharam Singh, appellant had filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, against respondent Wife Smt. Om Patti, seeking dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce. In the said petition it was alleged by him that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 15.6.1970 and that the parties lived together as husband and wife but no child was born out of the said wedlock and that the respondent wife had treated the petitioner husband with cruelty since the date of marriage and had deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years, preceding the filing of the petition. It was alleged that the respondent wife was a lady with hot temperament and was not able to adjust herself with the joint family and pressurised the petitioner from the very beginning to separate from the joint family, to which the petitioner did not agree, whereupon she started quarrelling with the petitioner and his family members and made his life miserable and started going to her parents house without his knowledge or permission. It was alleged that in 1975 the petitioner alongwith respondent shifted to Hisar (from village Sisai), but she continued treating the petitioner with cruelty. It was alleged that she would not prepare tea/meals for the guests and used to misbehave with the mother of the petitioner (who was residing with them). It was alleged that on 10.10.1985, the respondent finally left the house of the petitioner with all her jewellery and clothes etc., after quarreling with the mother of the petitioner and since then she was residing at the house of her parents and had not returned to the matrimonial home inspite of various efforts made by the petitioner in this regard. 3. In the written statement, the respondent wife admitted that the marriage took place on 15.6.1970 and that no issue was born out of the wedlock. She, however, denied the allegations of cruelty against her. 3. In the written statement, the respondent wife admitted that the marriage took place on 15.6.1970 and that no issue was born out of the wedlock. She, however, denied the allegations of cruelty against her. It was alleged that since she was not able to give birth to a child, the petitioner started misbehaving with her and started beating the respondent on false excuses and used to taunt her for not being able to produce a child. It was denied that she had ever gone to the house of her parents without the consent or permission of the petitioner. It was denied that she had ever misbehaved with the guest or family members of the petitioner or had left the matrimonial home on 10.10.1985, after quarreling with the mother of the petitioner. It was alleged that in fact, near about 10.10.1985, she had gone to her parents house on the birth of her nephew with her brother who had come to take her and the petitioner had promised to join her at her parents house but he did not turn up and that the respondent had gone to the petitioners house of her own, but he turned her out after giving her beating saying that he would marry some other lady and the matter had already been settled and there was no room for her in his house. It was alleged that it was under those circumstances that the respondent had gone to her parents house. It was alleged that the respondent was always ready to live with the petitioner without any pre-condition but the petitioner did not allow her to live in the matrimonial home. It was alleged that in fact, various efforts from her side were made so that the petitioner may rehabilitate her but of no avail. It was alleged that subsequently, respondent came to know that the petitioner had contracted second marriage on 17.10.1985 with one Smt. Sudha Rani. 4. In the replication, the petitioner husband controverted the allegations contained in the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed including issues on the question of cruelty and desertion. Both sides led evidence. 5. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned Addl. District Judge found that the petitioner husband had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty and desertion against the respondent wife. Resultantly, the divorce petition was dismissed. Both sides led evidence. 5. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned Addl. District Judge found that the petitioner husband had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty and desertion against the respondent wife. Resultantly, the divorce petition was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner husband filed the present appeal in this Court. At the time of arguments, no one came present on behalf of the respondent. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record carefully. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before me that the learned Additional District Judge erred in law in deciding the issues regarding cruelty and desertion against the appellant. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. As referred above, the marriage between the parties had taken place on 15.6.1970. Even as per the case of the petitioner husband the parties lived together in village Sisai in the joint family upto the year 1975 when the petitioner along with respondent had shifted to Hisar. It has come in the evidence that the petitioner was employed as Sub Inspector in Cooperative Societies. From 1975 to 10.10.1985, the parties lived together at Hisar when according to the petitioner the respondent left the matrimonial home and had gone to the house of her parents. From the material available on record, it would be clear that for almost 15 years the parties lived together as husband and wife, initially at village Sisai and thereafter at Hisar. Dharam Singh, petitioner in his statement had stated that from the very beginning the respondent had been quarreling with him and that even after they shifted to Hisar, she used to quarrel with his mother, who was residing with him. In my opinion, the testimony of PW1 Dharam Singh, petitioner that the respondent used to treat him with cruelty cannot be accepted in the absence of anything on the record to show that the respondent had ever treated the petitioner or his family members with cruelty. The incidents narrated by the petitioner at the most are normal wear and tear of the married life but would not go to show that the respondent had ever treated the petitioner or his family members with cruelty. The incidents narrated by the petitioner at the most are normal wear and tear of the married life but would not go to show that the respondent had ever treated the petitioner or his family members with cruelty. Not preparing tea or serving meals, in my opinion, by itself cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty or that the petitioner was entitled to dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce on this ground. PW2 Hari Ram was examined by the petitioner husband in support of his case. He is a neighbour. He deposed during cross examination that he had never seen the respondent quarreling with the petitioner and that he had only seen the quarrel between the respondent and her mother in law. In my opinion, even if some quarrel used to take place between the respondent and her mother in law, that by itself could not be taken to be a ground for divorce nor could it be said that the respondent ever treated the petitioner with cruelty. Similarly, the testimony of Ram Kishan, elder brother of Dharam Singh, petitioner that the respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner, in my opinion, cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the respondent had ever treated the petitioner with cruelty. This witness had stated that immediately after the marriage, the respondent had started quarreling with the petitioner. In my opinion, if the parties lived together till the year 1985 (the marriage took place in the year 1970 and muklawa in 1972), it could not be said that the alleged quarrel between the respondent and the petitioner would amount to cruelly on the part of the respondent. This is especially so when nothing has come on the record to show as to what was the nature of quarrel arid whether the alleged quarrel would show that the respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty. This is especially so when the respondent in her testimony had specifically denied having ever quarreled with the petitioner or his family members. In my opinion, learned Addl. Distt. Judge, after referring to the entire evidence had rightly found that the petitioner had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty against the respondent wife and no fault could be found with the same. 8. In my opinion, learned Addl. Distt. Judge, after referring to the entire evidence had rightly found that the petitioner had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty against the respondent wife and no fault could be found with the same. 8. So far as the ground of desertion is concerned, in my opinion, nothing has come on the record to show that the respondent had deserted the petitioner without sufficient cause. On the other hand, it has come to the record that it was the petitioner husband who had turned out the respondent from the matrimonial home and thereafter he contracted second marriage. The testimony of the respondent in this regard finds ample corroboration from the voters list, copy Ex.R2, for the year 1985 in which the name of Sudha Rani had been recorded as wife of the petitioner at serial number 685. The entry in the voters list itself may not be sufficient to hold that Smt. Sudha Rani is wife of Dharam Singh, petitioner, but it can definitely be said that in the year 1985, Smt. Sudha Rani was living in the house of the petitioner and he treated her as his wife. Merely because subsequently in the year 1989, the petitioner husband got the name of Smt. Sudha Rani deleted from the voters list, would not show that the allegations of respondent wife about Smt. Sudha Rani, living in the house of petitioner as his wife were baseless. In my opinion, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, including the oral and documentary evidence, available on record, learned Addl. Distt. Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the petitioner husband had failed to prove that the respondent had deserted the petitioner without sufficient cause. In view of the above, discussion, I uphold the findings of the trial court on issue Nos. 1 and 2. In view of the above finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed.