Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 209 (PNJ)

Mohan Lal v. Anju

2009-01-27

S.D.ANAND

body2009
Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. A petition filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife for dissolution of their marriage on the plea of cruelty and desertion was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 24.2.1999. The trial proceeded on the following issues :- 1. Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent as alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present petition ? OPR. 3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that earlier petition filed by the petitioner on the same cause of action was dismissed in default ? OPR. 4. Relief. " 2. Under issue No. 1, the trial court recorded a finding that the petitioner had not been able to prove that the respondent treated him with cruelty after the marriage. The finding under issue no. 1 -A was that the petitioner had not been able to prove that the respondent deserted him for a period of more than two years continuously from the date of presentation of the petition without any reasonable cause. Issue no. 2 was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. Issue no. 3 was disposed of in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. 3. There is no dispute that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 8.12.1990. It is also beyond the pale of controversy that the parties arrived at a compromise on 26.8.1992 (in the course of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act) which had been filed by the respondent-wife against the petitioner). In terms thereof, the wife accompanied the husband to the matrimonial house on that date itself. There also cannot be any controversy that she is no longer residing at the matrimonial house since 3.3.1993. Initially, the husband raised a plea that she left the matrimonial house on that date in the company of her mother and brother without his consent. However, there is ample material on record to prove that she left with the police which came to the matrimonial house in pursuance of search warrant issued under Section 97 of the Gr.P.C. It is apparent therefrom that all acts of cruelty alleged to have been committed by the respondent- wife upto 26.8.1992 stood condoned because the parties resumed co-habitation as husband and wife. 4. 4. The appellant-husband alleged that, even after the resumption of the matrimonial ties on 26.8.1992, the respondent-wife "did not change her behaviour and ways and means. She continued to cause mental torture to the petitioner and his mother during her stay in her matrimonial home after 26.08.1992." The further allegation in the context is that even while she was being taken away by her parents with the help of Punjab Police on 3.3.1993, she had taken along her gold and silver ornaments and also ornaments belonging to the appellant-husband and his mother. 5. This Court has, thus, to adjudicate upon the controversy or about whether the respondent- wife committed any act of cruelty during the post 26.8.1992 period upto 3.3.1993 or not. The appellant-husband stepped into the witness box, as his own witness, as PW-2 and examined his mother (Mst. Krishna) as PW-1. All that the former testified in the context was that "after respondent again joined, me and my family, her behaviour still remained the same and she continued to be abusive, callous and cruel to me and my parents". He did not quote even a single instance when the respondent-wife may have treated him or his mother with cruelty. Insofaras the PW-1 Mst. Krishna (mother of the appellant) is concerned, she did not utter a single word with regard to any act or instance of cruelty which the respondent may have committed during the period 26.8.1992 to 3.3.1993. 6. As already noticed the parties arrived at a compromise on 26.8.1992 in the course of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which had been filed by the respondent-wife against the appellant-husband. The parties resumed co-habitation thereafter. In that view of things, the inescapable conclusion is that all acts of cruelty which had taken place prior to 26.8.1992 stood condoned with the resumption of co-habitation by the parties to the cause pending before this Court. It is further apparent from the record that the appellant had not been able to adduce any convincing evidence to prove that the respondent-wife did commit an act of cruelty vis-a-vis him or any other family member of his family during the period 26.8.1992 to 3.3.1993. The appellant must be non-suited on that account. 7. That would bring us to the allegation with regard to the desertion on the part of the respondent-wife. The appellant must be non-suited on that account. 7. That would bring us to the allegation with regard to the desertion on the part of the respondent-wife. It is in the petition itself that the respondent-wife was taken along by members of her natal family when they came over to the matrimonial house with the Punjab Police. It is in the own statement of mother of the appellant that "about 5 years ago near the festival of Holi the respondents brother alongwith 4 police men and one Tarsem Singh came from Malerkotla (Pb.) and took the respondent with them. 8. They were having warrants with them." Even the appellant testified in the context that "respondents brother alongwith police from Dhuri (Punjab) had come with warrant and they had the respondent alongwith them." The appellant and his mother having conceded that the respondent- wife was taken away by the police in execution of the search warrants issued in accordance with law cannot be heard to put forward a case that she left the matrimonial house of her own. It is true that the respondent-wife might well have been competent to refuse to accompany the police. However, that point pales into insignificance in view of the fact that there is not even an averment on behalf of the appellant-husband that he made any effort thereafter to fetch the respondent- wife from her natal house. 9. The following evidence based facts are, thus, culled out from the above discussion :- 1. The alleged acts of cruelty on the part of respondent-wife (pertaining to the period upon 26.8.1992) stood condoned after the parties have compromised the matter during the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and resumed co-habitation on 26.8.1992. 2. Appellant-husband has not been able to adduce any evidence to prove that respondent- wife committed any act of cruelty during the period 26.8.1992 to 3.3.1993. 3. The respondent-wife had been taken away by the police in execution of search warrant issued in accordance with law and there is no evidence that the appellant-husband had taken any steps to fetch her from her natal house to the matrimonial house thereafter. 10. The least could have been done in the context to arrange a Biradari panchayat or to filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant concededly did not adopt any course of the indicated category. 10. The least could have been done in the context to arrange a Biradari panchayat or to filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant concededly did not adopt any course of the indicated category. In the light of the fore-going discussion, petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.