Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1128 (PNJ)

Hav. Diwan Chand v. Raj Kumari

2009-07-13

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2009
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This is husbands appeal against the grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindus Marriage Act (for short the Act) filed by the respondent/wife. 2. The respondent/wife sought a decree of divorce on the allegations that the marriage between the parties took place in the month of June, 1980 at village Khanni, Himachal Pradesh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage the parties lived and cohabited as husband and wife in village Gobindsar and out of the wedlock three children namely Nisha Rani aged about 15 years, Krishana Rani aged about 13 years and Parveen Singh male aged about 10 years were born, who are staying with the respondent/wife. 3. It was the case set up by the wife that the relations between the parties remained cordial for three years. Thereafter, the appellant/husband who was habitual drunkard, was in habit of assaulting the respondent/wife and further he leveled false allegation of adultery. He wrote a letter to one Smt. Sarjiwana Devi wife of Shiv Kumar Shastri, a Preacher belonging to Mathura, who used to visit the village Gobindsar in connection with religious function. False allegations about character were made, that she had illicit relations with the husband of Sarjiwana Devi, with whom she was said to be living adulterous life. He also leveled allegations against some other ladies. 4. A complaint was also made by the appellant/husband to the Commandant, which was sent to the S.S.P. of the District Gurdaspur for taking action against the persons. The case set up by the wife further was that when she objected to making of false allegations, she was given beating by the appellant/husband. Wife also pleaded that on 3.6.1996 the appellant dragged out the respondent from matrimonial home after giving her severe beating and turned her out of the house in three cloths, by stating that he did not want to keep her as his legally wedded wife. Allegations of character assassination were also made. 5. The petition was contested where he denied that he was habitual drunkard. He even denied having given beating to the wife. He even denied writing of any letter. He further took stand that no allegation were leveled by him. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court pleased to frame the following issues :- 1. 5. The petition was contested where he denied that he was habitual drunkard. He even denied having given beating to the wife. He even denied writing of any letter. He further took stand that no allegation were leveled by him. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court pleased to frame the following issues :- 1. Whether the behaviour of the respondent is cruel towards the petitioner ? OPP 2. Relief. 7. Respondent/wife supported her case regarding the allegations made by the appellant/husband regarding her character. She also proved on record Ex.P1 letter written by the appellant/husband wherein it was stated that respondent was having illicit relations with Shiv Kumar. The factum of Ex.P.1 having been written was admitted by the appellant. Learned matrimonial court also found that the allegations of respondent that she was given beating stood proved. 8. In support of the fact that giving beating amounted to cruelty reliance was placed on the judgment of this court in the case of Suresh Bala v. Rajbir Singh, 1996(3) RCR(Civil) 61 : 1996(2) CCC 380. 9. In the present case, it may be noticed that respondent/wife stated on oath that she attended Kirtan and Satsang organized by Shiv Kumar. It was also proved on record that Bihari Lal, who appeared as a witness proved that he was got arrested, by the appellant/husband on false allegations leveled against him. 10. The appellant had admitted that he had suspicion that the respondent had illicit relation with Bihari Lal and others. The learned matrimonial court, therefore, held that the aforesaid act of leveling false allegation amounting to cruelty. 11. Learned counsel fore the appellant contended that the judgment and decree of divorce granted by the learned matrimonial court deserve to be set aside as the allegations leveled were not of such grave nature, so as to cause danger to life, limb or health or which could cause reasonable apprehension of such danger, therefore, the finding of the learned matrimonial court that the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty cannot be sustained. 12. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned matrimonial court believed the version of respondent without scrutinizing the evidence of parties. Learned counsel for the appellant contended, that the finding about beating having been given to the respondent wife cannot be sustained. 12. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned matrimonial court believed the version of respondent without scrutinizing the evidence of parties. Learned counsel for the appellant contended, that the finding about beating having been given to the respondent wife cannot be sustained. It is also the plea raised that the learned matrimonial court failed to bring out reconciliation which was statutory duty of the court. 13. On consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 14. There is ample evidence on record to prove the fact that appellant had given beating to his wife on suspicion of her having illicit relations. The averments in petition stood proved by documentary evidence Ex.P.1, which the appellant admitted in cross-examination to be in his own hand. Making of false allegations of character against the wife constitute mental cruelty. 15. It cannot be accepted that in order to hold that a party is entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty there should be danger to life, limb or health or which could reasonable apprehension of such danger as contended. Mental cruelty also comes within the definition of cruelty under Section 13 of the Act. Leveling of baseless and false allegations of character against the wife does constitute mental cruelty. 16. Finding of the learned matrimonial court, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality nor it can be said to be the outcome of non judicial mind as contended. 17. In view of what has been stated above, there is no merit in the present appeal, which is ordered to be dismissed but with no order as to costs.