Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 360 (PNJ)

S. K. Garg v. Chanchal Kumari

2004-03-24

V.M.JAIN

body2004
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 6.4.1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the divorce petition filed by him against the respondent wife was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant husband had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent wife seeking the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. It was alleged in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 5.8.1983. It was alleged that at the time of the marriage, the appellant husband was a divorcee, whereas the respondent wife was a widow and that it was an inter caste marriage. It was alleged that the parties lived in house No. 3337, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh upto 1985 and out of the said wedlock, one daughter was born on 29.8.1984 and a son was born on 21.10.1986. It was alleged that the respondent wife had two daughters, namely, Rinku and Neetu from her first husband and according to the appellant, they had not been adopted by him although they were living with their mother in the house of the appellant. It was alleged that after the marriage, the respondent wife showed signs of mental disorder and she would lose temper and would start beating the children without any reason and even otherwise, her behaviour was abnormal and she used to use filthy language and used to abuse her younger daughters and whenever the appellant would intervene, she would abuse him also. It was alleged that she would not submit herself for sexual intercourse at the time when he wanted but would forcibly do so at the other times. It was alleged that often he had to leave for his office without breakfast because she would not prepare it and she would not attend to him whenever, he returned from his office. It was alleged that she would not submit herself for sexual intercourse at the time when he wanted but would forcibly do so at the other times. It was alleged that often he had to leave for his office without breakfast because she would not prepare it and she would not attend to him whenever, he returned from his office. It was alleged that during their stay in Sector 40, on one occasion, he intervened when she was beating her daughters, upon which he was abused and to save himself, he went out of the house but she along with her daughters followed him and threw stones at him and in that process she fell down and broke her arm, whereupon, she went to General Hospital, Chandigarh and was operated upon on 8.11.1985 and in the hospital, she had made the statement that she had suffered fracture while performing the domestic work. It was alleged that the respondent had treated him with mental cruelty and his life had become miserable and he had lost his peace of mind because the respondent wife had no sense of duty towards him and was suffering from mental disorder and was incurable of unsound mind and had refused to take medical treatment and was suffering from psychopathic disorder and was threatening to commit suicide and to blame him. 3. The respondent in the written statement admitted her marriage with the appellant and also the birth of two children and also admitted that she had two daughters from her first marriage. However, it was alleged that these children were adopted by the appellant at the time of their marriage. It was further alleged that on a number of times, the appellant had turned her out of the house along with children without giving them food and she was burtally beaten. It was denied that she had ever abused him and had given beatings to the children. It was alleged that she was given harsh and abnormal treatment by her husband but even then she tolerated it. It was alleged that the appellant had been making demands from her and when she arranged Rs. 9,000/- for the purchase of TV and fridge, his demands increased. It was alleged that she had got an FIR registered against him because of the threats of death given to her. It was alleged that the appellant had been making demands from her and when she arranged Rs. 9,000/- for the purchase of TV and fridge, his demands increased. It was alleged that she had got an FIR registered against him because of the threats of death given to her. It was further alleged that on 16.10.1985, the appellant had turned her out along with the children and she was given beatings with the stick and her arm was fractured and she was operated upon in General Hospital, Chandigarh. It was alleged that when she was lying admitted in the hospital, the appellant never visited her nor provided any medical aid. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, issue No. 1 was framed as to whether the petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds mentioned in the petition. Both the parties led evidence. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned Additional District Judge, decided issue No. 1 against the appellant, holding that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent had treated him with cruelty or/that he was entitled to dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on this ground. Resultantly, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the husband 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 submitted before me that the learned Trial Court had erred in law in deciding issue No. 1 against the appellant. It was submitted that since the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty and had lodged a false FIR against him, he was entitled to the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent wife has submitted before me that the learned Trial Court had rightly decided issue No. 1 against the appellant and had rightly dismissed the divorce petition. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. From the evidence led by the appellant husband, in my opinion, it could not be said that the respondent wife had treated him with cruelty. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. From the evidence led by the appellant husband, in my opinion, it could not be said that the respondent wife had treated him with cruelty. Neither the statement of the appellant nor the witnesses produced by him in support of his case, would be sufficient to hold that the respondent had treated him with cruelty. Merely because the respondent used to give beatings to her children, in my opinion it could not be said that the respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty. Furthermore, it has come on the record that the respondent had suffered injuries and she was admitted in General Hospital, Chandigarh and was operated upon. According to the appellant husband, she suffered the fracture when she fell down on the ground, whereas the case of the respondent wife is that her husband had given beatings to her resulting in the injuries on her person and fracture of her arm. The letter Exhibit R1 admittedly written by the petitioner to the respondent, would clearly show that it was he who had fractured the arm of the respondent. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, it could not be said that the appellant husband was able to prove that the respondent had ever treated him with cruelty. On the other hand, in fact, it was proved on the record that the appellant husband had caused her injuries resulting in the fracture of her arm for which she had to be operated upon. In this manner, it is proved that in fact, it was the husband, who treated the respondent wife with cruelty. In my opinion, the learned Trial court had rightly decided issue No. 1 against the petitioner husband and no fault could be found with the same. The authority Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, (2002-3)132 Punjab Law Reporter 493 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, I uphold the finding of the Trial Court on issue No. 1. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.