Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1576 (PNJ)

Sukhdarshan Singh v. Rajinder Kaur

2014-11-18

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, SNEH PRASHAR

body2014
Sneh Prashar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.02.2014 vide which the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act") for dissolution of marriage of appellant-husband Shri Sukhdarshan Singh with respondent-wife Smt. Rajinder Kaur, was dismissed with costs. The facts garnered from the record are as under:- Appellant-petitioner Sukhdarshan Singh (hereinafter to be referred as "the petitioner") was married to respondent Rajinder Kaur on 05.12.2008 at Patiala as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, they resided together as husband and wife but no issue was born out of the wedlock. The petitioner alleged that for about one month after marriage the behavior of the respondent was smooth with him, but thereafter it suddenly changed. She started harassing him and also threatened to involve him in false cases. She often remained absent from the matrimonial home due to her illicit relations with her brother-in-law (sister's husband), namely, Sahab Singh. In March, 2010, without informing him or his family members she went to reside with Sahab Singh. When he brought this to the knowledge of her parents, they approached his elders and ultimately a compromise was effected and an affidavit was sworn by her father on 10.04.2010. It was further pleaded that the respondent did not mend her ways even thereafter. She threatened to commit suicide in case there was intervention in her illicit relations with her brother-in-law. A complaint vide D.D.R. No. 16 dated 01.05.2010 was lodged at Police Station Sohana in that regard. She caused physical and mental cruelty to him and his family members and also filed a false complaint against them at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala, on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 389 dated 20.10.2010 was registered. Submitting that illegal activities of the respondent had lowered his status and dignity in the eyes of his friends, relatives and society, the petitioner prayed that his marriage with the respondent be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty. 2. Respondent appeared and contested the petition. She admitted her relationship with the petitioner but denied all allegations levelled against her in the petition. She disclosed that the petitioner had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rites before the Court at Mohali in which no such pleas were raised. When she indicated that she was ready for restitution, he withdrew the petition. She admitted her relationship with the petitioner but denied all allegations levelled against her in the petition. She disclosed that the petitioner had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rites before the Court at Mohali in which no such pleas were raised. When she indicated that she was ready for restitution, he withdrew the petition. His sole motive was to create some evidence in his favour. She categorically denied that she was having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law Sahab Singh or had been leaving the matrimonial home without permission of the petitioner. She alleged that she had never stayed in the house of her sister and brother-in-law after marriage and had visited them only once that too alongwith the petitioner. She further denied that she had ever treated the petitioner with cruelty and alleged that it was the petitioner whose behavior had always been harsh and cruel towards her because of which she had gone in depression. She submitted that when the petitioner was refusing to take her back to the matrimonial home, her father under great distress had signed a blank stamp paper which the petitioner had lateron fabricated into an affidavit. The D.D.R. No. 16 dated 01.05.2010 got registered by the petitioner was also alleged to have been manipulated by him to create evidence. Alleging that the adulterous allegations were baseless and had been levelled to tarnish her reputation and such imputation amounted to cruelty on her by the petitioner she prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. Petitioner filed rejoinder controverting the objections raised by the respondent and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled:- (1) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce as prayed for? OPP. (3) Relief. 4. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. 5. Finding that the petitioner had failed to prove the ground of cruelty as well as the allegation of adultery raised against the respondent, learned trial Court dismissed the petition with costs by judgment dated 01.02.2014. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the instant appeal. 7. Heard the submissions made by Ms. Amarpreet Kaur Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Raman Mohinder Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. 8. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the instant appeal. 7. Heard the submissions made by Ms. Amarpreet Kaur Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Raman Mohinder Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. 8. Petitioner Sukhdarshan Singh sought dissolution of his marriage with respondent-wife Rajinder Kaur on mainly two grounds, (i) cruelty; and (ii) adultery. It may be mentioned here that though the petitioner levelled allegations of illicit relationship of respondent Rajinder Kaur with her brother-in-law (sister's husband) Sahab Singh, but he chose not to implead Sahab Singh as party to the petition for the reason best known to him. Non impleading of Sahab Singh was the first infirmity in the case of the petitioner which calls for outright rejection of his petition. 9. Coming to the allegations and the evidence adduced by the petitioner, a scrutiny of the same would indicate that he had nothing but bundle of lies to tell. It was also quite evident that during the marital dispute going on between him and his wife he had been manipulating documents to create evidence. The petitioner, when stepped into the witness box as P.W. 4, made deposition in the shape of his affidavit Ex. P4. He reiterated the allegations of cruelty and adultery levelled by him against the respondent and he alleged that just after one month of his marriage, the respondent had started harassing him by giving threats that he would be involved in false cases if he tried to stop her from going to meet her brother-in-law at any time and at any place. In the month of March, 2010, without his permission and without informing any member of his family she went to reside with her brother-in-law. Her conduct was brought to the notice of her parents who approached his elders which resulted in a compromise and an affidavit dated 10.04.2010 Ex. P1 was sworn by Shri Jora Singh, father of respondent Rajinder Kaur. It was further in the deposition of petitioner Sukhdarshan Singh that respondent Rajinder Kaur still did not mend her ways and on 01.05.2010 she threatened him and whole family that she will commit suicide in case her illegal demand was not fulfilled and she was stopped from continuing with illicit relationship with her brother-in-law. He then reported the matter to the police and got registered D.D.R. No. 16 dated 01.05.2010 Ex. P2 at Police Station Sohana. 10. He then reported the matter to the police and got registered D.D.R. No. 16 dated 01.05.2010 Ex. P2 at Police Station Sohana. 10. The above were the two main instances testified by the petitioner to substantiate his allegation that the respondent had treated him with cruelty and also that she was having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that from the affidavit Ex. P1 of Shri Jora Singh, father of the respondent as well as from the D.D.R. Dated 01.05.2010 Ex. P2 recorded on the statement of the petitioner, it stands proved that almost immediately after marriage a dispute had arisen between the parties. The behavior of the respondent was rude and harsh towards the petitioner and his family members. The reason as explained by the petitioner was that she was having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law Sahab Singh and had developed the habit of leaving the matrimonial home without informing anyone to go and meet her brother-in-law. Her behavior and conduct proved that there could be no other reason than that she was having illicit relations with her brother-in-law. Apparently, for the said reason her father while executing affidavit Ex. P1 had stated that in case his daughter takes any wrong step, neither her husband nor any member of his family will be responsible. Learned counsel asserted that had there been no fault on part of the respondent or had the behavior and conduct of the petitioner been bad towards the respondent, her father would not have given any such undertaking. The fact that the respondent was having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, was sufficient to cause grave mental cruelty to the husband-petitioner. 12. Analysis of the evidence of the petitioner would show that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are completely devoid of merit. Importantly, the petitioner in his affidavit Ex. P4 did not mention the source of his information regarding illicit relationship of respondent Rajinder Kaur with her brother-in-law Sahab Singh who was residing in village Pandita Kheri. In his cross-examination, he stated that after marriage when he visited his in laws house he did not go to village Pandita Kheri. Importantly, the petitioner in his affidavit Ex. P4 did not mention the source of his information regarding illicit relationship of respondent Rajinder Kaur with her brother-in-law Sahab Singh who was residing in village Pandita Kheri. In his cross-examination, he stated that after marriage when he visited his in laws house he did not go to village Pandita Kheri. He also denied that he had ever gone to village Pandita Kheri with his wife Rajinder Kaur and volunteered to state that his wife had gone to the said village of her own and he had come to know about her visit from her father when he contacted him. In his further statement, he admitted that he cannot tell the exact date or month of the visit of respondent Rajinder Kaur to village Pandita Kheri. In the next breadth, he volunteered to state that it was few months after marriage. 13. From the above statement of the petitioner, it is clear that the respondent visited village Pandita Kheri of her brother-in-law few months after the marriage; the date or month or year of her visit was not known to the petitioner; he had come to know about the visit only from his father-in-law, when he contacted him; that was the only explanation the petitioner could offer in respect of his knowledge that respondent Rajinder Kaur was having illicit relations with her brother-in-law. 14. In fact, the above deposition of the petitioner was not in consonance with his own pleadings which proved him false. In his pleadings, he alleged that just one month after the marriage the respondent had started harassing and threatening him and his family members because of her illicit relationship with her brother-in-law as she wanted that she should not be stopped from going to meet him. In case after one month the respondent had declared that she was having illicit relations with her brother-in-law, the question of the petitioner having come to know about the same from his father-in-law did not arise. With this the petitioner also stands contradicted that he had come to know about the visit of the petitioner to her brother-in-law's place from his father-in-law. 15. With this the petitioner also stands contradicted that he had come to know about the visit of the petitioner to her brother-in-law's place from his father-in-law. 15. It may also be mentioned that in the pleadings, the petitioner alleged that in the month of March, 2010, respondent Rajinder Kaur had left the matrimonial home without his consent and without informing any family member and had gone to reside with her brother-in-law. The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 05.12.2008 and it was after one year and three months that the petitioner alleged that the respondent had gone to reside with her brother-in-law. Inconsistent with his own pleadings the petitioner in his cross-examination could not tell the exact date or month of visit of the respondent to the village of her brother-in-law and stated that it was just after few months of the marriage that she had gone to his village. 16. Be that as it may, the petitioner admitted that he filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. He also admitted that he had withdrawn that petition after the respondent had made a statement before the Court that she was ready to join him at the matrimonial home. The respondent Rajinder Kaur D.W. 1 pleaded and deposed that in the petition under Section 9 of the Act, the petitioner had not levelled the allegation that she was having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law. On a quarry put to the petitioner to enquire the reason for not alleging so in his earlier petition under Section 9 of the Act, he deposed that he came to know about the illicit relationship after he had filed the said petition. Here again it is apparent that the petitioner intentionally made a wrong statement. His deposition was that just after one month of marriage the respondent had started threatening to involve him in false cases in case he stopped her from going to her brother-in-law. When just after one month of the marriage the petitioner had come to know about the illicit relationship, evidently he wrongly deposed that he came to know about the illicit relationship after he filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act. 17. When just after one month of the marriage the petitioner had come to know about the illicit relationship, evidently he wrongly deposed that he came to know about the illicit relationship after he filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act. 17. None of the three witnesses P.W. 1 Krishan Kumar, P.W. 2 Vijay Kumar and P.W. 3 Subhash Chand examined by the petitioner to support his allegation stated that they had visited village Pandita Kheri or had ever seen respondent Rajinder Kaur residing with her brother-in-law at the said village. Needless to say that when they had no first hand information of the facts they were deposing, they were only procured witnesses who entered the witness box to make a statement as they had been tutored by the petitioner. As such, no credence can be attached to their testimony. 18. A perusal of the affidavit Ex. P1 allegedly executed by Shri Jora Singh, father of the respondent, shows that it was probably signed by him at the instance of the petitioner and his family members under compelling circumstances. The language shows that it was signed while sending respondent Rajinder Kaur to her matrimonial home in pursuance of a settlement after there had been a dispute between the parties and the respondent had returned to her parental home. Not a word was spelt out in the affidavit regarding any fault on part of the respondent, what to say of her having illicit relationship with any person. The recital in the affidavit was that in case his daughter takes any harsh step or suffers any loss, her husband, brother-in-law (Devar) or any other family member were not to be held responsible for the same and his daughter alone would be responsible. Apparently, it was only to save their own skin in the eventuality of some mis-happening that the petitioner and his family members had got the affidavit Ex. P1 signed from father of the respondent. 19. As far as the Daily Diary Report Ex. P2 was concerned, it was got registered by the petitioner on 01.05.2010 i.e. after one year and five months of the marriage as the parties were married on 05.12.2008. In the D.D.R. the petitioner stated that the respondent was creating quarrels in the family, but he did not utter a word against her character. P2 was concerned, it was got registered by the petitioner on 01.05.2010 i.e. after one year and five months of the marriage as the parties were married on 05.12.2008. In the D.D.R. the petitioner stated that the respondent was creating quarrels in the family, but he did not utter a word against her character. It was not his allegation that the respondent was having an extramarital affair with some person. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned here that in his pleadings he had stated that just after one month of marriage, the respondent had openly declared that she was having illicit relations with her brother-in-law and nobody should stop her from continuing the same. The inconsistency in the pleadings and evidence of the petitioner proved that everything put forth by him was false and he himself was at fault. 20. When it was proved that the petitioner had levelled false allegation of unchastely against the respondent, it can be said without hesitation that it is not the respondent whose behavior had been cruel towards the petitioner rather it is the petitioner who by leveling allegations against her character has been admittedly cruel towards her and by filing the instant petition he was trying to take advantage of his own wrongs. Accordingly, there being no infirmity or perversity in the findings of learned trial Court and there being no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.