Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1452 (PNJ)

Gurdarshan Singh v. Paramjit Kaur

2009-08-18

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (Oral)-The appellant/husband by way of this appeal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 1.3.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) for dissolution of marriage was rejected. 2. The parties were married on 22.1.1995 according to Sikh rites and resided together at village Nawan Pind Hundal. From the wedlock a female child was born in the month of September, 1996. The appellant filed a petition on the ground of cruelty by alleging that on 23.2.1996 respondent/wife had stolen golden ornaments, which were got recovered on 24.2.1996 in the presence of the panchayat. This act of the respondent was said to have caused mental cruelty to the appellant. It was also the case set up by the appellant that on 22.2.1996 respondent/wife set on fire the paddy straw lying in front of his Haveli, with an object to cause fire to the house. On account of timely intervention the situation was saved. Finally, it was pleaded that the daughter of the appellant from the previous marriage was not treated well by the respondent, and she died. It was also alleged that appellant suspected that the child had died due to poison, administered by the respondent. This was said to be a serious act of cruelty. 3. The appellant in support of his allegations that ornaments were stolen on 23.2.1996, besides examining himself, examined PW 3 Baldev Singh who had arranged the marriage between the parties and known to both the parties. In the examination-in-chief positive stand taken by the appellant as well as Baldev Singh was that at the time of handing over ornaments on 24.2.1996 in the presence of panchayat, a writing was recorded. However, no such writing was produced in court. Learned matrimonial court, therefore, held that these allegations could not be believed as the appellant withheld the best evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the finding of the learned matrimonial court on the ground that once there was statement of the appellant which was fully supported by PW 3, there was no reason for the learned matrimonial court to reject the evidence. 5. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be noticed to be rejected. 5. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be noticed to be rejected. It is settled law that if the best piece of evidence is not produced then the oral evidence cannot be relied upon and adverse inference is to be drawn against said party. No fault, therefore can found with the findings recorded. 6. Second allegation that the paddy straw was set on fire on 22.2.1996 was also disbelieved as PW 1 who appeared in support of the allegation, gave the date of fire to be May, 1995 which was contrary to the pleadings wherein it was pleaded that paddy straw was set on fire on 22.2.1996. The learned matrimonial court held that the evidence led did not inspire confidence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that merely because of wrong date given the evidence led by the appellant could not be rejected. The allegation was supported by the neighbour Smt. Parkasho, who was an independent witness. 8. This plea again deserves to be rejected. Once there was contradiction in the statements of witnesses on material aspect with regard to the allegations, the learned court was to reject said evidence. 9. In any case, the appellate court cannot take a contrary view unless finding recorded is perverse or was not capable of being arrived at on the evidence led by the parties on the point. This contention hence also deserves to be rejected. 10. To prove the third allegation that the appellant was treated with cruelty, the appellant stated that daughter from his previous marriage had died due to neglect of the respondent. It was further the case of the appellant that the respondent/wife had administered poison to her. 11. This plea again was not accepted by learned matrimonial court as admittedly no post mortem of the child was conducted nor any complaint in this regard was made. This allegation seems to have been coined by the appellant, in order to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty. In absence of any positive evidence in support of this, the learned matrimonial court was right in rejecting this allegation also. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the appellant, was treated with cruelty as the false criminal cases were filed against the appellant and his family members in which they were acquitted. In absence of any positive evidence in support of this, the learned matrimonial court was right in rejecting this allegation also. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the appellant, was treated with cruelty as the false criminal cases were filed against the appellant and his family members in which they were acquitted. This plea cannot be taken note of as neither it is part of pleadings nor any evidence was led in support thereof. No merit. Dismissed.