Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 325 (PNJ)

Kanwaljit Singh Pannu v. Parveen

2005-03-01

NIRMAL YADAV

body2005
JUDGMENT Nirmal Yadav, J. - Alleging cruelty and desertion against the respondent- wife, the appellant-husband approached the matrimonial Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to the filing of the present case are, that the parties were married on 03.01.1988. Out of the wed-lock, a son was born on 07.11.1988. Initially the couple had a happy married life, but 3-4 months thereafter the trouble started. It is alleged that the respondent-wife started misbehaving and insulting the petitioner in public at the instance of her father, who is a rich businessman. Her father wanted that petitioner should leave his place of residence and join his business outside the country. The petitioner did not accept the offer as he could not afford to leave his old parents in their old age as they were totally dependent upon him. Petitioner treated the respondent-wife with love and affection, but she did not take care of him and left for her parents house in the month of May, 1988. Since then she is living over there. The petitioner filed a petition for custody of the child, which is also pending adjudication. In spite of the order passed by the Court, the respondent-wife is not allowing the petitioner to meet the child. Even after the birth of the child, the petitioner went to the parental house of the respondent-wife to see the child, the petitioner went to the parental house of the respondent-wife to see the child, but he was insulted and humiliated and was not allowed to see the child. The petitioners parents and other family members went to respondents parents house to see him, but they all were insulted and father of the respondent misbehaved with them. It is further stated that the respondent took away all the dowry articles and her Istri Dhan while leaving the matrimonial home. Petitioner tried his best to bring about a change in the behaviour of the respondent, but she became disrespectful and hot headed. Petitioner and his parents arranged panchayats three times and went to the house of the respondents parents to bring her back to the matrimonial home, but she declined to join the same. Petitioner tried his best to bring about a change in the behaviour of the respondent, but she became disrespectful and hot headed. Petitioner and his parents arranged panchayats three times and went to the house of the respondents parents to bring her back to the matrimonial home, but she declined to join the same. In view of the mental cruelty and torture caused by the respondent, it has become impossible for the petitioner to live with her. The respondent-wife has refused to join the matrimonial home and deserted the petitioner since May, 1988. 3. The allegations made in the petition have been denied by the respondent-wife. According to her, the petitioner has suppressed the material fact that he had filed a petition for divorce on identical grounds on 04.03.1991, which was dismissed in default on 20.09.1993. Even the application for restoration of the said petition, filed on 21.03.1994, was dismissed in default on 03.10.1994. According to the respondent, the petitioner never cared to fulfil even the basic needs of the respondent and their minor son. He would come late in the night in a drunken condition, hurl abuses and give beatings to the respondent on petty matters. The respondent lived in the matrimonial home upto 05.03.1991 when she was asked by the petitioner to go and stay with her parents for 2-3 weeks as he was going out of station. During that period the petitioner filed the present petition on false grounds. It is asserted by the wife that as per the interim orders, the child was to be brought to the Court on every alternative month for having an audience with the petitioner. However, on some of the dates, the petitioner abstained to attend the Court and no intimation was given to the respondent-wife. The petitioner himself is responsible for not meeting the child. As per the respondent-wife she has always been willing and ready to joint the petitioner, provided, he takes care of her and their minor son. 4. In the replication, the petitioner controverted the allegations made in the written statement, reiterating his own pleadings. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : 1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion ? OPP 2) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 3) Relief. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : 1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion ? OPP 2) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 3) Relief. 5. The trial Court after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record decided issue No. 1 against the petitioner and issue No. 2 in his favour and dismissed the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband argued that the trial Court erred in holding that the petitioner has failed to prove the ground of cruelty. Learned counsel referred to letter Mark A written in the hand- writing of the respondent-wife to the Police of Sector 34-D, Chandigarh. It is contended that, the respondent-wife is of unstable mind and is having suicidal tendency. The learned counsel argued that the appellant always remained under mental tension on account of the behaviour of the respondent-wife. The respondent misbehaved with the petitioner, his parents and other family members when they visited her parents house to see the newly born child. He further argued that the respondent wanted the petitioner to leave his old parents and join her fathers business, which the petitioner could not afford as his parents were totally dependent upon him. The learned counsel argued that it is well proved on record that the respondent left the matrimonial home 3-4 months after the marriage and she never joined the same in spite of the fact that petitioner approached her through three panchayats convened in the year 1990. Even respondent herself has admitted about the panchayats having been convened. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioners version is fully corroborated by PW2 Ravi Kumar and PW3 Devinder Singh, father of the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife argued that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that the respondent-wife had ever treated him with cruelty. The only circumstance brought on record is the writing Mark A. However, a bare reading of this writing would reveal that the respondent-wife was disturbed on account of certain circumstances and no one was responsible, if anything happened to her. In a way she had exonerated everyone and did not want anyone to be held responsible for her death, in case she died in any accident. In a way she had exonerated everyone and did not want anyone to be held responsible for her death, in case she died in any accident. He further argued that even the appellant-husband failed to prove the ground of desertion. The learned counsel referred to the statement of PW2 Ravi Kumar who admitted that the respondent-wife was residing in matrimonial home in the year 1990 and panchayat was held in the house of the petitioner in the month of May, 1990. This witness also stated that the petitioner Kanwaljit Singh, respondent Parveen and their child were residing in petitioners house and petitioners parents had been looking after the child. According to him child was about one year old at that time. The witness further admitted that it was in the month of May, 1990, there was exchange of hot words between the parties when panchayat was convened. The above facts clearly show that the respondent-wife had not left the matrimonial home 3-4 months after the marriage. 8. As per the petitioner, the respondent humiliated and insulted him, and as such caused mental cruelty to him. The cruelty, of course, has not been defined under the Act. However, in relation to matrimonial matters it is contemplated as a conduct of such type which endangers the living of one spouse with the other or it consists of such acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health of the other. Cruelty may be physical or mental. As per the petitioner, the respondent-wife humiliated him and his parents when they visited her parents house and she intended that he should leave his parents house and start living separately. He also referred to writing Mark Act, which caused him mental cruelty as he remained under tension because of the suicidal tendency of the wife. 9. To my mind, the circumstances as narrated by the petitioner are not at all sufficient to prove that the respondent-wife had in any way caused mental or physical cruelty to the petitioner. There are no allegations that the respondent or any of her family member had caused any physical assault or otherwise caused any physical cruelty to the petitioner. Mental cruelty, of course, would be judged from the conduct of the spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. There are no allegations that the respondent or any of her family member had caused any physical assault or otherwise caused any physical cruelty to the petitioner. Mental cruelty, of course, would be judged from the conduct of the spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. It would, therefore, postulate a treatment at the hands of the respondent with such cruelty as to cause reasonable apprehension in petitioners mind that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the respondent. The cruelty has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other. In the present case, the petitioner has miserably failed to prove any mental cruelty having caused to him at the hands of the wife. He was seeking relief on writing Mark A. The said writing clearly shows that the respondent being frustrated had simply put down her apprehension but she did not want to involve either her parents or her in-laws for any mishappening. The respondent had exonerated everyone, if she was victim of any accident. This would certainly not amount to causing cruelty to the petitioner-husband. There is no independent or cogent evidence with regard to any cruel treatment meted out to the petitioner or to his parents. Ravi Kumar PW2, who is the only independent witness, did not utter even a word that the respondent had in any way misbehaved or humiliated the petitioner or his family members. Rather in the cross-examination, he stated that he could not say about any exchange of hot words between the parties because the same might have taken place inside the bedroom where he had no access. Even PW3, father of the petitioner did not say anything about the misbehaviour or any such act at the hands of the wife could cause mental cruelty to the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has also failed to prove that the respondent-wife had any intention of abandonment and permanently forsaking the company of petitioner. There is nothing to prove that there was total repudiation of the obligation of marriage. It is well established that desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things. The desertion would mean withdrawing from the matrimonial obligation i.e. not permitting or allowing co-habitation between the parties. There is nothing to prove that there was total repudiation of the obligation of marriage. It is well established that desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things. The desertion would mean withdrawing from the matrimonial obligation i.e. not permitting or allowing co-habitation between the parties. In the present case, there is ample evidence on record that the respondent-wife remained in the matrimonial home upto the year 1990. PW2 Ravi Kumar, the petitioners own witness stated so. According to him the respondent-wife last time came to the matrimonial home in the year 1990. He further admitted that panchayat was convened in petitioners house in the month of May, 1990. He also stated that it was only in the month of May, 1990 there was exchange of hot words between the parties when panchayat was convened. In the cross-examination, Ravi Kumar PW2 stated that Kanwaljit (petitioner), Parveen and their child were residing in the matrimonial home and Kanwaljits parents used to look after the child and at that time the child was about one year old. The above mentioned facts admitted by PW2 Ravi Kumar fully corroborates the version of respondent-wife. On the other hand, respondent-wife categorically stated that she remained in the matrimonial home upto March, 1991 when she was sent to her parents house on the pretext that the husband was going out for few days. She further stated that she went to the matrimonial home many a time but was not allowed to enter, also appears to be quite probable in view of the statement of PW2 Ravi Kumar when he stated that the respondent was residing in the matrimonial home, in the year 1990. 11. In these circumstances, I find myself in agreement with the finding and observations of the trial Court in the impugned judgment that the appellant has not been able to prove that the respondent had deserted him. Rather, there is ample evidence that the respondent had no intention of permanently forsaking or abandoning the company of the petitioner-husband. Moreover, the Courts must not take it lightly to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage. It is only in extreme circumstances that the Court may use this ground for dissolving a marriage. In the present case, the respondent-wife at all stages has been ready to go back to the matrimonial home. Moreover, the Courts must not take it lightly to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage. It is only in extreme circumstances that the Court may use this ground for dissolving a marriage. In the present case, the respondent-wife at all stages has been ready to go back to the matrimonial home. It is only the petitioner-husband who filed the petition for divorce twice i.e. one in the year 1991 and then the present petition. He did not even file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights if he had any bona fide intention to keep the respondent in the matrimonial home. 12. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed