Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1382 (PNJ)

GURPREET KAUR v. VIPINDEEP SINGH

2014-09-30

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, RAJ RAHUL GARG

body2014
JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife against the judgment and decree dated 23.5.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act") filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, was allowed. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.11.2008 at Malout as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, i.e. by way of Anand Karaj at Gurudwara Sahib at village Sheikhu. No issue was born out of the said wedlock. It was pleaded that the appellant was receiving secret mobile phone calls from some unknown person and she used to attend those calls by going away from the respondent-husband and his family members. It was further pleaded that the appellant stayed at Abohar for a few days for taking exams without the consent of the respondent. The appellant never disclosed the name of the person to whom she used to make calls and rather threatened to falsely implicate the respondent and his family members in criminal case. According to the appellant, her marriage was not solemnized with her own will and she wanted to marry some another person. The appellant left the company of her husband on 4.2.2009 against his wishes and also took her ornaments and costly clothes with her. Thereafter, a Panchayat was convened on 22.2.2009 but the appellant remained adamant to attend the secret calls and to serve at Abohar. The appellant submitted an application to the SSP, Sri Muktsar Sahib by leveling false allegations of demand of dowry etc. which was later on found to be false. Various efforts were made for reconciliation of the marriage between the parties but to no effect. The respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights where an effort was also made for reconciliation but the appellant refused to join the company of the petitioner. The said petition was later on withdrawn by the respondent. Thereafter, the appellant filed a criminal complaint under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code to harass the respondent and his family members. Accordingly, the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for a decree of divorce. The said petition was later on withdrawn by the respondent. Thereafter, the appellant filed a criminal complaint under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code to harass the respondent and his family members. Accordingly, the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for a decree of divorce. The said petition was contested by the appellant by filing a written statement. Besides raising various preliminary objections, it was pleaded that she was working as Lecturer and as per the demands raised by the respondent-husband, an amount of Rs. 24 to 25 lacs was spent in the marriage. It was further pleaded that an attempt was made to eliminate her and ultimately she was thrown out of the matrimonial home after giving merciless beatings. The other averments made in the divorce petition were controverted and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without any sufficient cause? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner is barred by his act and conduct to file the present petition? OPR 5. Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true facts from the Court? OPR 6. Relief. 3. The trial court took issues No. 1 and 2 together being interconnected and on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties decided the same in favour of the respondent holding that the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty and had also deserted for a continuous period of more than two years preceding to the presentation of the petition. Issues No. 3, 4 and 5 were decided against the appellant as she had failed to prove these issues by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 23.5.2014 decreed the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Act. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court was in error while holding that the appellant has treated the respondent with cruelty and also deserted him. Rather, it was the respondent who maltreated the appellant on account of demand of dowry and forced her to leave the matrimonial home. 5. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court was in error while holding that the appellant has treated the respondent with cruelty and also deserted him. Rather, it was the respondent who maltreated the appellant on account of demand of dowry and forced her to leave the matrimonial home. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The trial court on appreciation of evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the wife had herself withdrawn from the company of the husband without any reasonable cause and justification. Further, the trial court while passing a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act held that the wife treated the husband with cruelty and had also deserted him for a continuous period of more than two years. The relevant findings recorded by the trial court read thus :- "50. No party to the marriage can be allowed to take benefit of its own wrong. Here, the respondent has neither assigned any reason nor attributed non resumption of co-habitation to the petitioner for consummating the marriage. She cannot take benefit of her own wrong. On the other hand, it is the petitioner who made all out efforts to rehabilitate the respondent at his house by way of convening Panchayats, filing of petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He also offered to the respondent to join his company during the proceedings before the Women Cell, Sri Muktsar Sahib, but, the respondent had been refusing to live with him. Even she did not appear before the Mediation and Reconciliation Centre of the Hon'ble High Court, though, the directions were passed by the Hon'ble High Court in a petition filed by the respondent herself, where only the present petitioner had been putting in appearance. She even did not appear before the Punjab State Women Commission, Punjab, though, the petition was admittedly filed by her. The respondent herself put at rest the controversy when she specifically stated in her cross-examination that she is ready to give divorce to the petitioner and is not ready to cohabit/live with him. The plea taken by her is that there is threat to her life. The respondent herself put at rest the controversy when she specifically stated in her cross-examination that she is ready to give divorce to the petitioner and is not ready to cohabit/live with him. The plea taken by her is that there is threat to her life. She has also admitted that in a petition filed under Section 9 of the Act by the petitioner, she had refused to live with the petitioner as she had threat to her life. But, it is strange enough that no complaint with regard to threat to her life while living with the petitioner in the matrimonial home has ever been filed by her before any forum, rather an application was given to the SSP, Sri Muktsar Sahib on 28.3.2009 after filing of the complaint by the petitioner/husband to SSP, Sri Muktsar Sahib, on 7.3.2009 against the respondent/wife and her family members. Later, a private criminal complaint was also filed by her in the Court at Gidderbaha. In the facts and circumstances when there appears to be no chance of the marriage between the parties being retrieved as the respondent/wife Gurpreet Kaur herself is not willing to join the company of the petitioner, Therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that the respondent has herself withdrawn from the company of the petitioner without any reasonable cause and justification and thereby has will fully deserted the petitioner. 51. The above discussed conduct on the part of the respondent shows that she has withdrawn from the company of the petitioner without justifiable cause and factum of separation and intention on her part to bring co-habitation permanently to an and i.e. animus deserendi has been duly proved on the record. 52. In view of what has been discussed above, it has been proved that the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty and has also deserted him for a continuous period of more than two years preceding to the presentation of the present petition. Hence, the findings of both the issues No. 1 and 2 are accordingly returned in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent." 6. The findings recorded by the trial court were not shown to be erroneous or perverse in any manner. In view of the above, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. 7. This order shall also dispose of CMM No. 138 of 2014.