Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1225 (HP)

Bala Devi v. Virender Singh

2014-09-09

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2014
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. Parties to the present lis are husband and wife. They solemnized marriage on 19th October, 2001 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. One female child is born to them out of this wedlock. Respondent-husband was residing in Housing Board Colony at Dharamshala along with his mother and three unmarried sisters at the time of marriage. Two brothers of the respondent-husband are residing separately. The family arranged the marriage with all enthusiasm, hopes and expectations for long and happy married life to both of them, however, the behavior of the petitioner allegedly became indifferent with the family and intolerable. She started behaving with her husband and other members of his family indifferently. She was working as Anganwari worker at village Lanj Tehsil and District Kangra and left matrimonial house for that place without any information to the respondent. She allegedly started quarreling with old mother of the respondent and also his sisters. She allegedly made complaints against her husband to the police and also the Women Cell. She leveled allegations qua his chastity and made the imputations that he had relations with his sisters and also called him womenizer having relations with other ladies. They both, therefore, started living separately since 2002 i.e. after about one year of marriage. The petitioner and her minor daughter have also been awarded maintenance allowance being paid to them by the respondent. The respondent has also made available her rented accommodation at Dharamshala where she is residing with her daughter. 2. The strained relations between the two led in filing petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala after holding full trial has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has treated the respondent with cruelty. Consequently, dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce dated 09.01.2013, under challenge in the main appeal. 3. The appeal is barred by limitation, as there is delay of 181 days in filing the same. This application has been filed for condonation of delay so occurred in filing the appeal. Consequently, dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce dated 09.01.2013, under challenge in the main appeal. 3. The appeal is barred by limitation, as there is delay of 181 days in filing the same. This application has been filed for condonation of delay so occurred in filing the appeal. The only ground on which the delay has been sought to be condoned is that she was bonafidely exploring the possibilities of an outside Court settlement, keeping the decision of filing the appeal in abeyance and it is due to this reason, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal. 4. In reply, the stand taken by the respondent-husband is that after the institution of the litigation and after the decision of the divorce petition, the petitioner never made any endeavour to sort out the dispute amicably. It has, therefore, been submitted that the grounds she raised for condonation of delay are absolutely wrong, false and baseless and not sufficient to constitute “sufficient cause” required to be shown for condonation of delay. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner has argued that the decree of divorce passed against the petitioner is not only harsh and oppressive but also contrary to the evidence proved and as such, not legally sustainable. As regards, the delay occurred in filing the main appeal, according to learned counsel, the petitioner instead of filing the appeal against the decree made all possible efforts to settle the dispute with the respondent amicably. However, when efforts so made by her failed, she decided to file the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband while repelling the submissions so made has submitted that the application does not disclose any ground warranting the condonation of delay of an inordinate delay of 181 days, as according to him, the petitioner never made any effort to settle the dispute amicably after the decree of divorce passed by learned District Judge and even during the pendency of the petition also. On merits, it is submitted that there is no likelihood of the petitioner to succeed in the appeal as respondent has successfully pleaded and proved the cruel treatment she meted out to him. 7. The present is a case where there is delay of 181 days occurred in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 09.01.2013. 7. The present is a case where there is delay of 181 days occurred in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 09.01.2013. It is well settled that a party seeking the condonation of delay has to show sufficient cause leading to the delay so occurred. Additionally, in order to succeed in an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the day-to-day delay is required to be explained. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P.K. Ramachandran versus State of Kerala and others, AIR 1998, Supreme Court, 2276 has held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The High Court of Rajasthan in Union of India versus Brij Lal and Prabhu Dayal and others, AIR 1999 Rajasthan, 216 has also held that a party seeking condonation of delay must place before Court facts constituting ‘sufficient cause’ failing which the delay cannot be condoned. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another versus Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC, 1353 has further held that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ implied by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which sub-serves the ends of justice. 8. Now adverting to the explanation as set forth in the application qua condonation of delay as occurred in filing the appeal in this case, according to the petitioner, after obtaining the certified copy of judgment and decree on 28th February, 2013, with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation and also to live in peace and harmony, she made efforts to sort out the matter amicably, however, it is on account of indifferent attitude of her husband, amicable settlement could not be arrived at and that it is for this reason she failed to file the appeal within the period of limitation. As noticed, at the very out set the respondent husband has denied any such endeavour to resolve the issue amicably ever made by the petitioner after the decision of the divorce petition and even during the pendency thereof also. As noticed, at the very out set the respondent husband has denied any such endeavour to resolve the issue amicably ever made by the petitioner after the decision of the divorce petition and even during the pendency thereof also. The stand of the respondent-husband seems to be nearer to the factual position because the petitioner-wife has not disclosed any particulars as to when, where and in whose presence or with the help of whom she made efforts to re-concile the controversy amicably with her husband, the respondent. Not only this but the trial Court record reveals that no prayer was ever made on her behalf qua amicable settlement of the dispute. As a matter of fact, conciliation was never tried between the parties during the pendency of the divorce petition in the trial Court. True it is that keeping in view the dispute matrimonial, this Court deemed it appropriate to try conciliation on the previous date, however, failed, as the respondent-husband had a grouse against the petitioner that since she started torturing him by leveling false allegations after about six months of the marriage and even complained the matter to the police as well as Women Cell and also the Women Commission, therefore, according to him there was no scope of re-union. The petitioner wife, no doubt, shown her readiness and willingness to join his company, but since the respondent-husband was not prepared to live in her company, the efforts to re-concile the matter so made failed. Any how, it is difficult to believe that the petitioner-wife was prevented from filing the appeal in this Court well within the period of limitation, as she was interested to re-concile the controversy amicably. 9. I have gone through the voluminous record including the evidence produced by the parties on both sides. As a matter of fact, present is a case contested hotly by the parties on both sides. The respondent-husband has examined nine witnesses including his two sisters, neighbours, taxi driver, milkman and also the employees of the bank. The petitioner-wife has also examined six witnesses including herself. The allegations qua chastity of the respondent-husband including his relations with his own sisters are substantiated from the statements of the witnesses the respondent-husband examined. Even his own sisters while in the witness box have also stated that respondent was leveling the allegations that their brother has illicit relations with them. The petitioner-wife has also examined six witnesses including herself. The allegations qua chastity of the respondent-husband including his relations with his own sisters are substantiated from the statements of the witnesses the respondent-husband examined. Even his own sisters while in the witness box have also stated that respondent was leveling the allegations that their brother has illicit relations with them. The witnesses have also deposed in so many words qua the quarrelsome nature of the petitioner and her indifferent and intolerable behaviour with the respondent and other members of the family. The petitioner-wife, no doubt, while in the witness box has denied she having leveled allegations against the chastity of her husband or having leveled allegations qua his relations with his own sisters, however, the witnesses she examined neither could deny nor admit such allegations being leveled by the petitioner against her husband, as according to them, it is not known that she was doubting chastity of her husband and leveling allegations that he has illicit relations with his own sisters. Therefore, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, in my opinion, there is no likelihood of the petitioner to succeed in the main appeal even on merit also. 10. Having regard to the given facts and circumstances and also the material available on record, the petitioner has failed to explain the delay of 181 days as occurred in filing the appeal. On the other hand, on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal, a valuable right is accrued in favour of the respondent-husband, which cannot be taken away when the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause warranting the condonation of delay. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and other applications, if any, shall also stand dismissed being time barred.