Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1170 (PNJ)

Geeta Sharma v. Anil Kumar Sharma

2014-08-07

M.JEYAPAUL, NAVITA SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT NAVITA SINGH, J. 1. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 2. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2009 passed by District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani, vide which the petition filed by the present respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act for short) was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved. The appellant, feeling aggrieved of the relief granted to the respondent, came in appeal. 3. The case of the respondent-husband, emerging from his pleadings, was that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 8.2.2003 at Bhiwani as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. They came to Chandigarh on 10.2.2003 and lived there as husband and wife. However, no child was born to them. At the relevant time, the respondent was preparing for Civil Services Examination and his source of income was private tuitions. 4. The appellant, being a short tempered and high-headed lady, did not behave well with the respondent and her behaviour from the very begining was very rash. She did not want to adjust in the matrimonial home and told the respondent that she was compelled to marry him and that she was not interested. She did not take any interest in the domestic chores or generally in the house and in the respondent. 5. In the last week of February 2003, she said that she wanted to go to her parents house as she was to take examination for B.A. 2nd year. She went to Bhiwani on 3.3.2003 but did not return after completion of her examination. Various phone calls were made by the respondent to her and ultimately he had to go himself to bring her back on 5.5.2003. During her stay in the house of her parents, she did not try to contact the respondent either on telephone or by writing letters etc. The respondent used to talk on phone in the house of her neighbours, as there was no telephone in the house of her parents. 6. The behaviour of the appellant, which was bad earlier, remained so after she came back from Bhiwani. She rather told the respondent that she was in love with someone else and could not live in the matrimonial home. 6. The behaviour of the appellant, which was bad earlier, remained so after she came back from Bhiwani. She rather told the respondent that she was in love with someone else and could not live in the matrimonial home. She even went to the extent of saying that it was better for her to end her life rather than living with the respondent against her wishes. Certain instances were given in the petition when the appellant misbehaved with the uncle of the respondent and other guests. 7. On 3.6.2003, the appellant went to Bhiwani for the marriage of her brother, which was held on 11.6.2003 and it was also attended by the respondent. The respondent came back on 12.6.2003, but the appellant refused to come back with him. Thereafter, he made several requests to her and she returned on 25.6.2003. 8. On 15.7.2003, the respondent came across a diary of the appellant, in which some romantic poetry was written with a sad note. On asking by the respondent, she disclosed that she was still in love with the person with whom she had relations before marriage and she could not forget him and could not adjust with the respondent. She also misbehaved with the respondent in the presence of students and ultimately on 3.8.2003, she left bag and baggage telling the respondent that she had no intention of returning. 9. The matter did not end there. The appellant filed criminal complaint against the respondent and his family members and they were arrested in FIR No. 445 dated 29.11.2003 under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC of Police Station, Bhiwani. The respondent was arrested on 23.12.2003 and remained in police custody upto 26.12.2003. She filed a petition for maintenance levelling false allegations. 10. The appellant defended the present petition on the ground that the husband had no cause for getting the marriage dissolved and rather she was the victim of atrocities on his part. Admitting the marriage, it was pleaded that the respondent was running coaching centres at Changarh and Moga and those were being run in the properties owned by him. Despite the fact that she had brought sufficient dowry, the respondent and his family members were not satisfied and kept humiliating her on the ground that she had brought insufficient dowry. Admitting the marriage, it was pleaded that the respondent was running coaching centres at Changarh and Moga and those were being run in the properties owned by him. Despite the fact that she had brought sufficient dowry, the respondent and his family members were not satisfied and kept humiliating her on the ground that she had brought insufficient dowry. She was quite cool headed, whereas it was the respondent-husband who was short tempered and did not treat her properly. It was admitted that she had gone to Bhiwani for taking examination but pleaded that while going there she was told by the respondent to bring Rs. 1,50,000/- when she returned. Her father had to mortgage half share of his house with Harish Chander in order to raise the amount and the same was paid to the respondent and his father in the presence of Mahesh Chander on 10.3.2003. 11. The appellant totally denied that she had ever said anything to the respondent regarding her love affair with someone else and stated that the respondent himself had illicit relations with the female students and was an awara type of person. All the other allegations made by the respondent were denied. It was stated that before the festival of Raksha Bandhan, her brother came to fetch her and she was sent with him without any clothes or jewellery etc. and since then she was residing with her parents as the respondent refused to accept her back in the matrimonial home. Efforts were made by her father to rehabilitate her, but he was insulted by the respondent and his father. A panchayat was held on 11.10.2003, but the respondent and his family members again demanded dowry and no settlement was arrived at enabling the appellant to go back to the matrimonial home. She further inter alia pleaded that criminal complaint filed by her was not false as alleged by the respondent. 12. Replication was filed by the respondent to the written statement of the appellant in which, as usual, he denied the allegations of the appellant and reiterated those made in his petition. 13. The court below framed the following issues: - 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion from 3.8.2003, if so, its effect? OPP 3. 13. The court below framed the following issues: - 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion from 3.8.2003, if so, its effect? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner has got no cause of action as averred in para No.2 of the preliminary objection? OPR 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 5. Whether the petitioner is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present petition? OPR 6. Whether the petition is counter blast to the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. and criminal litigation? OPR 7. Whether the petition is mala fide and has been filed with ulterior motive, if so, its effect? OPR 8. Relief. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant, first of all, referred to the judgment Ex.R7, which was passed on 13.7.2009 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, acquitting the respondent and his family members in the criminal case launched against them by the appellant. In support of his contention that making of a false complaint against the respondent and his family amounted to mental cruelty, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the authority reported as K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, AIR 2013 SC 2176 . It was held in the said reported case by the Supreme Court that where a spouse resorted to revengeful litigation and wife filed complaint against her husband and family on unfounded allegations of harassment and she also made effort by filing appeal etc. to put the husband and family behind bars, mental cruelty was surely the result and it could be safely said in such cases that the conduct of the wife was sufficient to cause mental cruelty. 15. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the judgment of acquittal has not become final because of the appeal filed by the appellant and he contended that in such situation, it could not be said that the complaint made by the wife was false. Not disputing the fact put forth by learned counsel for the appellant, it would still remain a fact as well that the appellant filed appeal against the judgment of acquittal showing her clear intention to see the husband and his family members in jail. Not disputing the fact put forth by learned counsel for the appellant, it would still remain a fact as well that the appellant filed appeal against the judgment of acquittal showing her clear intention to see the husband and his family members in jail. Therefore, there is no question that she wanted to settle in the matrimonial home. The respondent and his family members having faced the agony of trial for more than five years before the trial Court, underwent mental cruelty by the filing of the appeal by the wife and they still have the sword of democles hanging on their head. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that serious allegations were made by the appellant against the respondent to the effect that the latter was having illicit relations with the female students attending his tuition classes and the allegation having not been substantiated by the former by way of any evidence, the result was mental cruelty to the latter. 17. The appellant even went to the extent of saying that the respondent was awara which means he was loafer, was flirting with female students and further that he had illicit relations with them. However, during evidence, there was the bald statement of the respondent in that regard. To counter the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the fact regarding illicit relations of the respondent with his students was disclosed by the appellant before the Women Cell. Hence, this part was also incorporated in the report Ex.RW3/A, which is proved by Savitri Devi, Sub Inspector, when she appeared as RW3. However, when confronted with the cross examination of the witness, the counsel could not deny that the original report and relevant documents were not produced by the Sub Inspector and further that she did not know who were the persons associated by her in enquiry. The cross-examination of the witness reveals that she stated that she did not know the names of the persons who participated in the enquiry and then went on to say that they had only joined the investigation but had not made any statement before her. The report Ex.RW3/A, thus, cannot be relied upon without original record and without any knowledge about the facts by Savitri Devi, Sub Inspector. 18. The report Ex.RW3/A, thus, cannot be relied upon without original record and without any knowledge about the facts by Savitri Devi, Sub Inspector. 18. The appellant did not bother to examine any of the persons who participated in the enquiry before the Women Cell and therefore there is nothing on record either to show that any independent person was associated at the time of enquiry or that he/she had witnessed any such thing alleged by the appellant regarding relation of the respondent with girl students. None of them was even called upon to be a witness on behalf of the appellant. This would give rise to the presumption that there was no one who could come forward to substantiate the allegations of the appellant. Making such serious allegation just for the sake of it and then not being able to prove it certainly subjected the appellant to mental cruelty. The respondent pleaded and also stated in his evidence that when he received the summons along with copy of application filed by the appellant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his students including one Ujjwal and Upinder Joshi were present who had read the same and the esteem of the respondent was lowered in the eyes of his students. Ujjwal, one of the students, was examined as PW3. He was subjected to cross-examination wherein he stated that he was aware that two criminal cases were pending against the respondent, who was his teacher, one regarding demand of dowry and the other for maintenance allowance. He also maintained his stand that allegations levelled in the case of maintenance were that the present respondent was having illicit relations with female students and he was a vagabond. He stated that he had read the petition because he was present with the respondent when the latter had received the summons and copy. Thus, the respondent was able to prove that false allegation was levelled against him and he had to cut a sorry figure before his students. It is understandable that the respondent must have undergone tremendous agony on that count. 19. Thus, the respondent was able to prove that false allegation was levelled against him and he had to cut a sorry figure before his students. It is understandable that the respondent must have undergone tremendous agony on that count. 19. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the husband wanted to get rid of his wife and he filed the petition on false and frivolous ground and it was rather the appellant, who was the victim, fall flat on the ground in view of the discussion made above. The appellant was able to prove his case regarding mental cruelty and the appellant remained unsuccessful in her attempt to dislodge the case of the respondent and also to prove her own case regarding torture on account of dowry and otherwise. 20. Even regarding desertion, the appellant was able to show that the respondent had left his house on 3.8.2003 and had not returned thereafter despite efforts made by him. The respondent on the other hand tried to show that some panchayat was convened on 11.10.2003 for rehabilitating the respondent in the matrimonial home. Her examination-in-chief was a reproduction of the pleadings but she was not supported by any witness from the panchayat for proving the fact. Besides herself, she got her father examined to prove the facts of the case, who as expected, supported his daughter. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to Ex.P6 from the diary of the appellant where she had written some romantic verses sharing that she had a broken heart and was longing for someone else from whom she had been separated due to the marriage apparently. This piece of evidence, however, cannot be given much importance as the life of the appellant before marriage is not the concern here. Nothing is proved by the respondent that the appellant was having any relation with some other person after marriage as well. That evidence, however, can be taken to substantiate the averment of the respondent to some extent that the appellant used to tell him that she was forced into marriage with him and that she wanted to marry someone else. 22. That evidence, however, can be taken to substantiate the averment of the respondent to some extent that the appellant used to tell him that she was forced into marriage with him and that she wanted to marry someone else. 22. For the reasons given above, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court made no mistake in granting the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent and that the appellant failed to convince this Court that the decree was passed without application of mind. 23. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.