Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1259 (PNJ)

Amrit Pal Singh v. Gurpreet Kaur

2009-07-29

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2009
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. Amrit Pal Singh appellant/husband has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.3.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Patiala on a petition filed by the respondent/wife under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) seeking a decree of divorce. 2. Marriage between the parties, took place on 23.1.1994 at Patiala according to Sikh rites. After the marriage the parties cohabited and lived together and out of this wed-lock a male child was born on 20.2.1996. It was the case of the respondent/wife, that appellant/husband was addicted to liquor and other intoxicants. He wasted the whole of the dowry articles and golden jewellery belonging to the respondent/wife, for the lust of liquor and other intoxicants. Other ground on which divorce was sought was that she was given severe beating by the appellant/husband, and it had become routine of the appellant to give severe beating to the respondent/wife under the influence of liquor. It was also the case of the respondent/wife that in the month of March, 2004, the appellant/husband had given beating to her for not bringing sufficient amount in the form of Nanakshak, and that she was turned out of the matrimonial home along with minor child. Panchayat was convened by the parents of the respondent/wife, and on asking of the panchayat, appellant/husband assured that he would behave with the respondent/wife properly, and would not maltreat her in future on account of dowry, but in spite of assurance given, the behaviour of the appellant/husband towards the respondent remained cruel. 3. It was also the case of the respondent/wife that the appellant even failed to provide meal to her, and minor child. She was not allowed to sleep in the room during the winter season, with the object of harassing her. He also restrained her from meeting her parents, and whenever they paid a visit, the appellant misbehaved with them. On 9.4.2004 the appellant gave beating to the respondent with a dang and caused injuries on her right arm. She was asked to bring more amount from her parents. Respondent/wife lodged a report No.28 dated 9.4.2004 with the police of Police Station Division No.4, Patiala, and she was got medically examined at Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. Lateron, on the intervention of the Panchayat and relatives a compromise dated 10.4.2004, was effected between them. She was asked to bring more amount from her parents. Respondent/wife lodged a report No.28 dated 9.4.2004 with the police of Police Station Division No.4, Patiala, and she was got medically examined at Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. Lateron, on the intervention of the Panchayat and relatives a compromise dated 10.4.2004, was effected between them. As per the said terms of compromise, both the parties terminated their relations as husband and wife, and decided to live separately, since then the respondent/wife is living with her parents. 4. As already referred above it was averred that her dowry articles were wasted by the appellant, and because of the ill-treatment, physical and mental health had deteriorated. 5. On averments referred to above divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty. 6. The petition was contested by the appellant, wherein factum of marriage on 23.1.1994 was admitted. Birth of male child was also admitted. Stand taken by the husband was, that the child was snatched away forcibly from the appellant, despite the fact that the respondent/mother had no love and affection towards the child, nor she looked after him properly. He denied that he was addicted to liquor and other intoxicants. Fact that the dowry articles were wasted was also denied. He also denied that he has given beating to the respondent by Dang. The stand taken by the husband was, that he had started a small shop at Patiala but his business failed, he therefore, requested the wife and her parents to send her to village Dakala, District Kurukshetra, so that he might be able to earn for his family, but the parents of the respondent refused to send her to village Dakala. This was said to be the dispute between the parties. It was also the stand of the appellant/husband that story has been concocted by the respondent/wife to harass the appellant. Other allegations regarding not providing of meals and respondent being not allowed to sleep in room in winter were also denied. 7. Explanation for report No.28 date 9.4.2004 was that, in fact she met with an accident between scooter and cycle, and that he was falsely named in the DDR. 8. In the replication the averments made in the written statement were denied and that of the plaint were reiterated. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. 8. In the replication the averments made in the written statement were denied and that of the plaint were reiterated. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP 2. Relief. 9. In support of her case the respondent/wife examined her father Sucha Singh PW 1, HC Bahadur Singh PW 3, Gurbachan Singh PW 4, Dr.Vishal Chopra PW 5 and she herself appeared as PW 1. The appellant appeared in witness box as RW 1, and also examined Gurnam Singh as RW 2 and closed evidence. 10. On appreciation of evidence, learned matrimonial court decided, issue No.1 in favour of the respondent/wife. In view of the findings recorded, the marriage was ordered to be dissolved by way of decree of divorce. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that judgment and decree passed by the learned matrimonial court cannot be sustained, inasmuch as the respondent/wife had failed to prove the cruelty. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the medico-legal report, to contend that injuries were suffered by the respondent/wife in an accident. Learned counsel for the appellant contended, that evidence was led by the appellant to show, that the main dispute between the parties was that the respondent/wife was not willing to go to his village, in spite of failure of his business at Patiala. The judgment and decree, therefore, cannot be sustained. 12. However, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 13. The respondent/wife in her examination-in-chief supported her version. Allegations further stood proved by DDR and MLR brought on record as Ex.PW3/A. Site of injuries in MLR leaves no manner of doubt, that the injuries suffered could not be the outcome of accident, between scooter and cycle as alleged. The stand of the appellant/husband that the injuries were suffered, in an accident was rightly rejected. In view of the evidence led by the respondent/wife which was also supported by her father and member panchayat, who proved that the respondent was ill-treated. Giving beating to a wife under drunken condition certainly affected the mental and physical state of wife. It cannot, therefore, be expected from the wife to live with the husband. 14. The findings of the learned matrimonial court are based on appreciation of evidence. Giving beating to a wife under drunken condition certainly affected the mental and physical state of wife. It cannot, therefore, be expected from the wife to live with the husband. 14. The findings of the learned matrimonial court are based on appreciation of evidence. The stand of the husband was rightly rejected for the reasons stated above. 15. No ground is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned matrimonial court. 16. The appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs.