Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 706 (PNJ)

Simranjit Kaur v. Ravinder Parkash Singh

2012-05-11

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, T.P.S.MANN

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.: - This appeal has been filed by the wife against the judgment and decree dated June 02, 2011 passed by the District Judge, Faridkot, whereby the petition filed by her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, has been dismissed. 2. According to the appellant, her marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 3.2.2008. The parties lived together for more than 2-1/2 months, whereafter the respondent left for Canada. The mother-in-law of the appellant started taunting the appellant that Scorpio vehicle was not given in the marriage. The appellant sought divorce on the ground of cruelty. Upon notice, the respondent put in appearance through his Attorney. In the reply filed through the Attorney, the respondent denied the allegations of cruelty. 3. The trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty, if so to what effect? OPP (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to have her marriage with the respondent dissolved by a decree of divorce as contemplated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act? OPP (3) Relief.” 4. In support of her case, the appellant examined herself besides producing her father Bikkar Singh and her cousin Manpreet Singh, who reiterated and proved the allegations levelled by her in the divorce petition. On the other hand, the respondent (husband) did not lead any evidence and closed the same by making statement in that regard through his Attorney. 5. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, held that the appellant had failed to prove the ground of cruelty and, accordingly, dismissed the divorce petition. Hence the appeal. 6. On January 05, 2012, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought time to argue the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant on the one hand and the respondent on the other hand stated that the appeal be taken up for final hearing itself. Accordingly, the trial Court record was requisitioned and the case was adjourned for final hearing. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of the trial Court has been perused with their able assistance. 8. Accordingly, the trial Court record was requisitioned and the case was adjourned for final hearing. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of the trial Court has been perused with their able assistance. 8. We have perused the statements of PW1-Simranjit Kaur, the appellant herself; PW2-Bikkar Singh, father of the appellant and PW3- Manpreet Singh, cousin of the appellant. All the three witnesses while tendering their respective affidavits by way of examination-in-chief deposed in clear terms that the appellant had been treated with cruelty and in that regard gave various instances. Though the respondent chose to cross-examine all the witnesses of the appellant but failed to elicit any material to show that the appellant had not been treated with cruelty. Only suggestions were put that the appellant had not been treated with cruelty, but those suggestions were specifically denied by the three witnesses. The respondent neither appeared in support of his plea nor examined even his father in whose favour he had executed the power of attorney to represent him in the case. Accordingly, the allegations of cruelty levelled by the appellant had gone unrebutted. 9. We have perused the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. In our considered opinion a case has been made out by the appellant that she had been treated with cruelty. Under these circumstances, the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Act. The evidence of the appellant when considered as a whole sufficiently establishes that the appellant had been treated with cruelty and, therefore, she is entitled to a decree of divorce on the said ground. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, accepted, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is set aside, the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Act is allowed and the marriage between the parties is ordered to be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.