Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 658 (PNJ)

Randip Kaur v. Gurmeet Singh

2009-04-15

S.D.ANAND

body2009
Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. The wife is in appeal against the order dated 5.10.2006, vide which the learned Trial Court ordered the dissolution of her marriage with respondent Gurmeet Singh (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-husband) by a decree of divorce. 2. The respondent-husband had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on averments which may be indicated as under :- 3. The marriage between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband was solemnised on 25.11.1995, as per the Sikh rites . The parties cohabited, as husband and wife, and two issues (one son and daughter) were born out of their union on 13.7.1996 and 7.11.1997 respectively. They were born at America where the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband stayed for a period of three years. 4. On 15.12.1998, the appellant came over to India alongwith her children. However, it transpired that she was a lady of easy virtue. She initially developed illicit relations with Varinder Singh, a real brother of the respondent-husband, who committed suicide. Thereafter, she developed illicit intimacy with respondent No. 2 Jasbir Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the paramour"). Ultimately, the appellant eloped with the paramour on 16.8.2000. While leaving the matrimonial house on elopement she had also taken along 20 tolas of jewellary, cash amount of Rs. 70,000/- and the FDRs which had been purchased by the respondent-husband in the name of children out of his own funds. The episode was notified to the police of the Police Station, Adampur vide FIR No. 160 dated 27.10.2000 under Sections 380/120 IPC. Ever since thereafter, the appellant-wife is living in adultery with the paramour. 5. The respondent-husband had, thus, applied for a decree for dissolution of marriage on an averment that the appellant-wife had willfully deserted him with effect from 16.8.2000 and further that she had committed an act of mental cruelty against him by having eloped in the company of the paramour and for continuing to lead an adulterous life. 6. The appellant-wife conceded the solemnisation of marriage and the birth of two children to her from the loins of respondent-husband. However, she denied having developed illicit relations with her brother-in-law Varinder Kumar or that his having committed suicide on that account. 6. The appellant-wife conceded the solemnisation of marriage and the birth of two children to her from the loins of respondent-husband. However, she denied having developed illicit relations with her brother-in-law Varinder Kumar or that his having committed suicide on that account. She also denied having any illicit intimacy with the paramour or her having eloped in his company and further her having taken along any dowry, cash amount or FDRs etc. She alleged that she had been kidnapped by the respondent-husband and the paramour, in connivance with each other. She denied leading an adulterous life. She also denied having willfully deserted her husband. The trial proceeded on the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent No. 1 is living in adultery with respondent No. 2 as alleged ? OPA 2. Whether petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce ? OPA 3. Whether divorce petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Relief. 7. The respondent-husband stepped into the witness box as own witness as PW-2 and also examined Saroop Singh as PW-1, Mohinder Kaur as PW-3, Kulwinder Kumar as PW-4, Mrs. Promila Chodha as PW-5, Bhagat Ram as PW-6 and Gurnek Lal as PW-7 to cement his case. 8. Insofar as the appellant-wife is concerned, she tendered her affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief into evidence but did not turn up thereafter for cross-examination. 9. The learned Trial Court on perusal of the material obtaining on the file recorded finding in favour of the respondent-husband on issues No. 1 and 2. Issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the respondent-husband being not pressed. 10. I have heard Mr. D.K.Bhatti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and have carefully gone through the record. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant-wife argued that the fact that the appellant-wife not having entered witness box for cross-examination notwithstanding the evidence adduced by respondent-husband on point of allegation (that the appellant-wife was having illicit relations with two different individuals is not sufficient to affirm that finding). In support of that view, it was argued that the respondent-husband had conceded that he did not personally verify the correctness of the allegation in the relevant behalf. ("All the events which took place before 2003 my mother told me about it and thereafter I have personal knowledge regarding the facts"). In support of that view, it was argued that the respondent-husband had conceded that he did not personally verify the correctness of the allegation in the relevant behalf. ("All the events which took place before 2003 my mother told me about it and thereafter I have personal knowledge regarding the facts"). In that very context, it was argued that since the respondent-husband was incarcerated in jail in America following his conviction in a case, he could not possibly have any personal knowledge about the illicit relations which the appellant- wife may have had with an individual. 12. The plea put forward is plainly specious. It must be noticed that as per the allegations levelled by the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife had illicit relations firstly with formers own brother Virender Singh and thereafter with a person named Jasbir Singh. Qua the allegation pertaining to the former, we have on record the deposition on oath of none lese or other than the own mother of the respondent-husband (and also Virender Kumar aforementioned). She testified on oath that her (other) son Virender Singh had illicit relations with the appellant-wife and that (since that relationship was not acceptable to her) he committed suicide. One would not expect a mother to defame the deceased son of hers particularly with such an allegation. 13. It would be relevant to notice here that the mother of the respondent- husband had made a precise allegation that the love letter Ex. PA had been addressed by the appellant-wife to her son Viorender Singh. She also claimed familiarity with the hand writing/signature of the appellant-wife. Though she was subjected to a fairly lengthy cross-examination,otherwise there is not even a word directed at her in the context of the proof of love letter Ex. PA. 14. Insofar as the other paramour (Jasbir Singh) is concerned, we have on record the testimony on oath of none else or other than his own father i.e. Bhagat Ram. He categorically indicated in the course of the cross-examination that the appellant-wife had been residing with his son Jasbir Singh (at the house of the witness) at Sham Chorasi since 2001. But she left his house on 31.7.2004 and he has presently no idea about the whereabouts of the appellant-wife. He clarified in the context that he and his son Jasbir Singh had made a complaint to SSP, Hoshiarpur against the appellant-wife in August, 2004. But she left his house on 31.7.2004 and he has presently no idea about the whereabouts of the appellant-wife. He clarified in the context that he and his son Jasbir Singh had made a complaint to SSP, Hoshiarpur against the appellant-wife in August, 2004. It is in his statement that his son Jasbir Singh had already obtained a court divorce from his first wife. He also testified that the appellant had informed them that she was a divorcee and her husband was in a jial in USA. He did concede that he did not verify the correctness of that averment made by the appellant-wife from her parents but tried to explain the refrain on his part on account of the fact that he was having strained relations with her parents. He further explained that their strained relations arose out of the fact that the appellant-wife and Jasbir Singh were in relationship since their college days and that fact had not been liked by her parents as it was an inter-caste affair. 15. Insofar as Jasbir Singh is concerned, it is apparent from the record that exparte proceedings had been ordered against him by the learned Trial court. It is obvious therefrom that there is no rebuttal of the allegation on the part of the respondent No. 2 (Jasbir Singh). 16. Insofar as the appellant-wife is concerned, she did tender her affidavit into evidence in lieu of the examination-in-chief but did not enter the witness box again for the purpose of cross-examination and her evidence was ultimately closed under the orders of the Court. On that premise, the learned Trial Court appropriately observed that her testimony could not be taken to be substantive in character. 17. The position that, thus, emerges is that the allegation pertaining to the illicit relationship of the appellant-wife with Virender Singh and Jasbir Singh are testified on oath by the mother of the former and also the father of the latter and their credit could not be impeached in the course of the cross-examination. In contrast, there is no even a word on the record on behalf of the appellant-wife to rebut that part of the evidence. It is, thus, a case of the respondent-husband having adduced almost unrebutted evidence in support of the charge that the appellant-wife had illicit relations with Virender Singh and Jasbir Singh. 18. In contrast, there is no even a word on the record on behalf of the appellant-wife to rebut that part of the evidence. It is, thus, a case of the respondent-husband having adduced almost unrebutted evidence in support of the charge that the appellant-wife had illicit relations with Virender Singh and Jasbir Singh. 18. In the light of the fore-going discussion, it is apparent that the appeal is denuded of merit. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are relatable to the material obtaining on the file. The appreciation of evidence in the context of those findings is appropriate. The appeal shall stand dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court shall stand affirmed.