Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 825 (PNJ)

Randhir Singh v. Saroj Bala

2009-04-29

S.D.ANAND

body2009
Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. The appellant-husband is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.11.2008 vide which a plea filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called as "the Act") was declined by the learned Trial Court. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 18.5.1997. It was consummated in the area of villagte Bhongra, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. Two children (a daughter and a son) were born out of their union. Both the children are living with the respondent-wife. As both the parties are in public employment (the appellant being an employee of the Education Department and the respondent being an official posted in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Jind), the marriage was a simple affair. It is averred that the respondent-wife, from the very inception of the marriage, was a dominating spouse and wanted the appellant to live the way she wanted him to. She did not even permit the appellant to have his parents live in the matrimonial house. She was in the habit of taunting the appellant that teachers do not teach properly and thereby spoil the career of children. She always had a feeling of superiority as she was posted in the office of an Officer who wielded local influence; whereas the appellant had no reputation in the society. The respondent would not even spend a PENNY on the family. There were many anti social elements who were in the company of the respondent and those elements used to threaten the appellant to lead his life under the pressure and guidance of the respondent or else he shall have to face dire consequences. On 10.10.2004, a brother of the respondent-wife tried to do away with the appellant. He, in that endeavour, was assisted by three number of anti social elements. However, the miscreants fled the spot when he raised a noise. At times, the respondent used to even beat up the appellant. On one particular occasion i.e. 21.7.2007 at about 9.00 P.M., the respondent gave the appellant a tooth bite and also a knife blow on the latters arm. He had also got himself medically examined. 3. Prior thereto, the appellant was also beaten up once by two police officials. Ultimately, a Panchayat was convened on 19.12.2004 to resolve the dispute. On one particular occasion i.e. 21.7.2007 at about 9.00 P.M., the respondent gave the appellant a tooth bite and also a knife blow on the latters arm. He had also got himself medically examined. 3. Prior thereto, the appellant was also beaten up once by two police officials. Ultimately, a Panchayat was convened on 19.12.2004 to resolve the dispute. It was decided by the Panchayat that the dowry articles would be retained by the respondent-wife; whereas the articles purchased by them subsequent to the marriage would be divided equally between the parties. Following that compromise, the parties resumed cohabitation. The respondent did not, however, mend her ways. As already noticed, the respondent gave the appellant a tooth bite and also a knife blow on the latters arm. 4. The appellant had, thus, applied for the dissolution of the marriage on the plea of cruelty. 5. The respondent-wife contested the averments aforementioned and averred that the marriage had been consummated at Gurgaon where she was putting up at the time of marriage. At that point of time, she was posted in Deputy Commissioners office, Gurgaon and was residing in Red Cross Hostel for working women over there. She denied having ever pressurised the appellant to follow her dictates in his life. The plea, on the other hand, was that the respondent was compelled to lead the life of a beggar. It was the appellant who belaboured the respondent repeatedly and made her invest her savings for the purchase of a residential house at Jind. She also compelled to raise a loan for the purpose aforementioned. However, the appellant got that house fraudulently transferred in his name later on. It was the appellant who would visit the place of work of the respondent, abuse her and cause embrassment to her over there. She denied that she ever resisted the stay of her parents-in- law at the matrimonial house. She averred that she used to spend all her income upon the education of the children and house hold expenditure. The further averment, in the context, is that the respondent is having a residential plot at Panchkula and the appellant wants to force her to sell it. She is not inclined to accede to his request. In contrast to the relevant allegations made by the appellant, the respondent averred that it is the appellant who had withdrawn from the matrimonial society. 6. She is not inclined to accede to his request. In contrast to the relevant allegations made by the appellant, the respondent averred that it is the appellant who had withdrawn from the matrimonial society. 6. The trial proceeded on the following issues :- "i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce on the grounds as mentioned in the petition ? OPP ii) Whether the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands ? OPR iii) Relief" 7. The appellant examined PW-2 Arjun Singh, PW-3 Teka Ram, PW-4 Dr. Satish Sulekh and PW-5 Mst. Sandokhi, besides entering the witness box, as his own witness, as PW-1. 8. The respondent entered the witness box as her own witness as RW-2. She also examined Surinder as RW-1. 9. The learned Trial Court recorded findings adverse to the appellant under both the issues. 10. I have heard Shri V.D.Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The respondent argued her own case in person. On the earlier date of hearing i.e. 10.2.2009, she had announced to the Court that she would be arguing her matter personally and was not inclined to engage a counsel. I have carefully gone through the file. 11. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the entire approach of the learned Trial Court is unacceptable for the simple reason that it did not attach deserved importance to the fact that it was the respondent who had made the life of the appellant hell on account of her overbearing and insulting attitude and had also withdrawn from the conjugal society of the appellant. 12. It is the own plea of the appellant that the two issues born out of the union of the parties are residing with the respondent- wife. The learned Trial Court negatived the appellants plea by noticing that he had not produced any documentary evidence to cement the verbal averment that the respondent-wife got him beaten up by two police officials or that her brother (with the help of three number anti social elements) tried to do away with him. It was also observed by the learned Trial Court that the appellant-husband had not been able to prove that he ever lodged any complaint with the higher (Executing/Police) authorities against his assault by two police officials at the instance of the respondent-wife. Insofar as the testimony of Dr. It was also observed by the learned Trial Court that the appellant-husband had not been able to prove that he ever lodged any complaint with the higher (Executing/Police) authorities against his assault by two police officials at the instance of the respondent-wife. Insofar as the testimony of Dr. Satish Sulekh is concerned, the learned Trial Court observed that though the appellant adduced evidence to the effect that he got himself medically examined on that very date at about 10.00 P.M., the medical testimony did not tally that the ocular presentation with regard to the nature of injuries and further because the Medical Officer had conceded that the possibility of those injuries being self suffered could not be ruled out. 13. The present seems to be a case of a clashes of egos. Both the parties are from the educated segment of the society. Both have secured independent means of sustenance inasmuch as both are in Government employment. If the respondent-wife had got the appellant assaulted by the police and further if a brother of the respondent (with the assistance of three number of anti social elements) had tried to do away with the appellant, there is no reason why the appellant would not have notified the police and further why he would not have brought the episode to the notice of higher authorities in the office of respondents. In the context, all said and done, the respondent is holding the post of a Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. She cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, is said to be wielding any power which would enable her to over and the appellant who is also not an uneducated person but a teacher in the Education Department. By the very nature of things, the appellant also belongs to the enlightened segment of the society. He would be expected to be cognizant of the fact that he must notify the police if he is assaulted by the respondent or at her instance. 14. Even if it is assumed, for the sake of arguments, that there were verbal or physical skirmishes between the parties, it cannot be said with any justification that the act on the part of the respondent-wife (even if those are presumed to have been harsh) were of that character which could fall within the ambit cruelty as defined under the Hindu Marriage Act. The normal wear and tear of the married life has to be taken by the spouses into their strider. The present is not proved to be a case of indicated category. The reasoning recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the relevant behalf deserves affirmation. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.