Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 979 (PNJ)

Manjit Kaur v. Mohan Singh

2006-03-08

HEMANT GUPTA

body2006
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The wife is aggrieved against the decree of dissolution of marriage granted by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar on a petition filed by the respondent. 2. The marriage of the parties was solemnised on 18.2.1981 and out of that wed-lock a son was born in July, 1982. The husband is employed in Army and used to visit home whenever he was granted leave. The husband sought divorce on the ground that the wife is in the habit of picking quarrels with his mother and unmarried sister and used to abuse them within the hearing of the neighbours. It is further alleged by the husband that the wife would go to her parental house the next day of his departure of his joining his duties. A panchayat was convened and she resumed cohabitation in June 1986. It has further been alleged that the wife deserted the husband since July, 1986. The Panchayat was again convened on 22.7.1994 but the wife failed to join the society of the husband and thus, the husband sought dissolution of marriage. 3. The petitioner-husband himself appeared as PW-3 and produced Jasbir Singh PW-1, Ajaib Singh PW-2 and Sarpat Singh PW-4, the residents of the village of the husband. The wife has appeared as RW-1 and examined Ujjagar Singh as RW-2 and Parkash Singh RW-3, a member of the Panchayat. 4. The learned District Judge on the basis of the evidence on record returned a finding that the wife has not treated the husband with cruelty and thus, decided issue No. 1 against the husband. However, the learned District Judge held that the wife is guilty of desertion since she has failed to join the matrimonial home even after convening the Panchayat on 22.7.1994 and thus, dissolved the marriage between the parties. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record of the case and find that the findings recorded by the learned District Judge are not sustainable on issue No. 2. It is the admitted case that the husband was working in the Army and used to come to his house during the period of leave granted by the Army Authorities. It is admitted by the husband that the wife used to accompany him whenever he was on leave and was residing at his house. It is the admitted case that the husband was working in the Army and used to come to his house during the period of leave granted by the Army Authorities. It is admitted by the husband that the wife used to accompany him whenever he was on leave and was residing at his house. Thus, the mere fact that the wife was not residing in his absence in the matrimonial home cannot be a ground of desertion. The husband made grievance of the fact that the wife was not residing in the matrimonial home during his absence when he was on active duty. 6. Iv is the stand of the wife that she was initially turned out of the house on 11.12.1981 by giving severe beating when she was in a state of pregnancy. In spite of the fact that the message was sent to the husband regarding the birth of a child but still none from the side of the husband came to visit her. She has further stated that the Army Authorities have granted a maintenance of Rs. 800/- per month in view of the fact that she was not being maintained but to avoid the payment of maintenance the husband took her to his house on 24.11.1985 but again turned her out of 25.1.1986 and thereafter he has not taken the appellant to the matrimonial home. 7. The learned District Judge has primarily relied upon the evidence of the husband of convening Panchayat in July, 1994 to hold that the respondent has failed to join the society of the husband. However, I am unable to accept such finding. In fact, the witnesses produced by the husband are contradictory in their statements regarding the time and the manner of convening the Panchayat. PW-2 Ajaib Singh has stated that when the Panchayat has gone to the appellants house on 27.7.1994, the members were asked to come again on 29.7.1994. However, Jasbir Singh PW-1 has stated that on 27.7.1994, when the Panchayat was taken to the house of the parents of the appellant, the house was found locked. PW-2 Sarpat Singh has stated that he had gone to the house of appellant in Panchayat in July, 1994. The parents of the appellant were not present on that day. Again he had gone on 29.7.1994. PW-2 Sarpat Singh has stated that he had gone to the house of appellant in Panchayat in July, 1994. The parents of the appellant were not present on that day. Again he had gone on 29.7.1994. Meaning thereby that three witnesses produced by the respondent have given three different statements in respect of the visit of Panchayat on 27.7.1994. As per Ajaib Singh, the Panchayat was asked to come again on 29.7.1994 but as per Jasbir Singh, the house was found locked and as per Sarpat Singh, parents of the wife were not present. Such contradictory statements in fact show that the story of taking Panchayat is only a made up story and is an excuse to seek dissolution of marriage. Panchayat is alleged to have been taken in the month of July, 1994 although admittedly the wife is residing separately since 1986. No effort is even stated to have been made to bring and rehabilitate the wife to the matrimonial home prior to July, 1994 i.e. just prior to the filing of petition of dissolution of marriage in September, 1994. On the other hand, the stand of the wife is categorical and believable that only to avoid payment of maintenance, she was taken to the matrimonial home for a short duration and then turned out of the home. Thus, I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned District Judge on issue No. 2 cannot be sustained in law. Such findings are not possible findings on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. Consequently, I allow the present appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge with no orders as to cost.