Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1642 (PNJ)

Manpreet Kaur v. Jasbir Singh

2014-11-28

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, SNEH PRASHAR

body2014
Sneh Prashar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is by Manpreet Kaur appellant-wife assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar Mohali, in HMA Case No. 19 dated 22.02.2011 filed by Jasbir Singh respondent-husband. The facts extracted from the record, which need elaboration are as under: Jasbir Singh-respondent was married to Manpreet Kaurappellant on 10.02.2008 at Rajpura as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, Manpreet Kaur lived at her matrimonial home for 10-15 days and then went to meet her parents and stayed there for 10 days. After she was brought back to the matrimonial home, her mother came to meet her regularly and gave some medicines to her on the pretext that there was some infection in her stomach. Two months thereafter, Manpreet Kaur again went to her parents place and lived there for one month. When Jasbir Singh went to see her, he found that she was not well and he brought her back. Thereafter, she would become aggressive towards him and his family members and used to blindly refuse to prepare meals for them. In the second week of July 2008, when Manpreet Kaur was suffering from some stomach problem, he took her to a private doctor in his village who on finding that her heart beats were not normal, prescribed some medicines to her. In August 2008, mother of Manpreet Kaur came to meet her and provided some medicine saying that prior to marriage she was taking treatment and the medicine had been prescribed by the family doctor. In third week of December, 2008, there was swelling on the whole body of Manpreet Kaur and she fell down in a semi conscious condition and was taken to Mehra Hospital at Ambala City. On 22.12.2008, She was thoroughly checked and was subjected to several medical tests to diagnose the disease. Finally, the doctor of the Mehra Clinic referred her to Govt. Medical and College Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. On 23.12.2008, Manpreet Kaur was taken to GMCH-32, Chandigarh, where again she had to undergo various tests and ultimately the doctor told that her right kidney was damaged and in the left kidney there was a stone. The doctor also opined that the disease was many years old. Medical and College Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. On 23.12.2008, Manpreet Kaur was taken to GMCH-32, Chandigarh, where again she had to undergo various tests and ultimately the doctor told that her right kidney was damaged and in the left kidney there was a stone. The doctor also opined that the disease was many years old. After the truth was revealed Manpreet Kaur disclosed to her husband Jasbir Singh that she was suffering from the said disease prior to marriage and her parents had told her not to disclose the same to him and his family members. When the parents of Manpreet Kaur came to know about the aforesaid facts, they took her with them saying that she will come back after some days, but she did not return. Ever since 23.01.2009, she was residing with her parents and despite all efforts made by Jasbir Singh through relatives and Panchayat, she had refused to come back and join his conjugal company. Her parents also declined to send her back at any cost. In the end, it was submitted by Jasbir Singh that all gold ornaments given to Manpreet Kaur by his parents at the time of marriage were taken away by her when she left the matrimonial home. She not only cheated him by concealing the fact that she was suffering from a chronic ailment prior to marriage, she also deserted him without any reasonable cause. She refused to cohabit with him and harassed and humiliated him and his family members. In that manner, he suffered severe mental and physical cruelty at her hands. 2. Manpreet Kaur-appellant contested the petition. She altogether denied that she was suffering from any aliment prior to marriage. She also denied that she was taken to any doctor by her husband. According to her, she called her father when she was unwell and he took her to a doctor. It was also submitted by her that she alongwith her husband had gone to meet her parents after 6-7 months of the marriage and had returned to her matrimonial home with him. She denied that she suffered pain in stomach in the second week of July, 2008 or her mother used to come to her matrimonial home and provide medicine to her. Though she admitted that she had taken treatment from GMCH-32, Chandigarh, but denied all other allegations/averments of the petitioner/husband. She denied that she suffered pain in stomach in the second week of July, 2008 or her mother used to come to her matrimonial home and provide medicine to her. Though she admitted that she had taken treatment from GMCH-32, Chandigarh, but denied all other allegations/averments of the petitioner/husband. As a counter allegation, she alleged that her husband himself and on the abatement of his relatives had started giving her such things in the meals which resulted in deterioration of her health day by day. After some time, her husband and his parents started demanding ` 3 lacs from her for increasing his dairy business and when she was unable to satisfy their demand she was turned out of the matrimonial home in November, 2008. By then, her condition had become worst and her kidneys had got affected. Since November, 2009, she was undergoing dialysis either weekly or twice a week and had been spending ` 1000/- per week on her treatment and was charged ` 1650/- for changing tubes. While she was spending minimum `8000/- per month on medication and good diet, she was getting no financial support from the husband/petitioner and hence, she prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether respondent subjected petitioner Jasbir Singh with creulty, as alleged? OPP (ii) Whether respondent has deserted the petitioner without any sufficient cause? OPR (ii) Relief. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. 4. Finding that Manpreet Kaur wife-appellant had committed matrimonial offence of cruelty towards Jasbir Singh husband/petitioner and also that she had deserted her husband with effect from 23.01.2009 for a continuous period of two years preceding the date of petition without any reasonable excuse, learned trial Court allowed the petition for divorce filed by Jasbir Singh husband and dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.07.2014 passed by the trial Court, the wife has preferred the instant appeal. 6. Shri. S.S. Sarwara, learned counsel for the appellant was heard. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-Manpreet Kaur argued that the appellant had been fair enough to admit her ailment in her written reply as well as during her deposition when she stepped into witness box as R.W. 3. 6. Shri. S.S. Sarwara, learned counsel for the appellant was heard. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-Manpreet Kaur argued that the appellant had been fair enough to admit her ailment in her written reply as well as during her deposition when she stepped into witness box as R.W. 3. She was suffering from renal problem, both her kidneys had been affected since November, 2009 and presently, she is undergoing dialysis either weekly or twice in a week and her parents are spending huge amount on her medication, good diet etc. Learned counsel contended that the appellant was married to respondent Jasbir Singh on 10.02.2008, whereas the disease from which she is suffering was detected on 12.12.2008 as pleaded by Jasbir Singh himself. She simply had a pain in her stomach but during her stay with respondent Jasbir Singh she was continuously given some medicine in meals by him and his family members which deteriorated her condition and her kidneys got affected. It is respondent/Jasbir Singh and his family who was to be blamed for causing ailment to appellant Manpreet Kaur. Therefore, Jasbir Singh had a moral as well as legal obligation to look after appellant Manpreet Kaur and he should not be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs. 8. The answer to the question, whether appellant Manpreet Kaur was suffering from renal failure prior to the marriage or she developed the said ailment after marriage, lies in the statement of P.W. 3 Dr. Sanjay D. Cruz, P.W. 4. Dr. Vishal Mehra and P.W. 5 Dr. Neera Mehra. In paragraph 10 of the judgment the trial Court discussing the medical evidence produced by Jasbir Singh recorded its findings as under: "Although, P.W. 1 Tarlochan Singh brother of the respondent Manpreet Kaur has tried to prove that the disease had occurred after solemnization of marriage but his plea has been falsified by the experts Dr. Vishal Mehra, Dr. Neera Mehra and Dr. Sanjay D. Cruz, as all of them have unequivocally opined that the disease was chronic one. Here, the meaning of the expression of the medical term "chronic disease" is to be taken as a disease which was quite old one and as such could not have developed within a few months, just after the solemnization of the marriage. Here, medical evidence trickled from the mouth of P.W. 3 Dr. Here, the meaning of the expression of the medical term "chronic disease" is to be taken as a disease which was quite old one and as such could not have developed within a few months, just after the solemnization of the marriage. Here, medical evidence trickled from the mouth of P.W. 3 Dr. Sanjay D. Cruz is of utmost importance as he has categorically stated that as per ultrasound report, the size of the kidney was small. So, it was a case of small size kidney and it has been stated by Dr. Sanjay D. Cruz that in all cases where the size of kidney is small then it is tantamount to chronic disease. Otherwise also, in the back drop of above said medical opinion, it cannot be said at all that the size of the kidney of Manpreet Kaur could have reduced after her marriage." The findings of the learned trial Court flowed from the evidence available on file as well as from the admissions of the appellant herself and there appears no perversity or adversity in the said findings. Though unfortunate for the appellant and also without any fault on her part, but the fact remains that the ailment diagnosed, of which she was suffering, was a chronic disease. As stated by P.W. 4 Dr. Vishal Mehra and P.W. 5 Dr. Neera Mehra, the chronic renal disease could not have been developed in few days or few months, which means that it was an old ailment for which the appellant was already taking medicines prior to her marriage and for that reason her mother had been regularly visiting her matrimonial home to provide her the medicines. 9. It was not the case of the appellant that she had disclosed her ailment to respondent/husband prior to marriage or immediately after marriage. Rather, she and her parents made the best endeavor to conceal the factum of her disease prior to marriage as well as after marriage. Because of the medical problem she was suffering from, there appears no reason to disbelieve the respondent/husband that her behavior towards him and his family members was aggressive and she used to refuse to cohabit with him. Respondent Jasbir Singh performed his duty of providing her the required treatment from competent and expert doctors, whereas her conduct amounted to breach of trust on which this pious institution of marriage is founded. Respondent Jasbir Singh performed his duty of providing her the required treatment from competent and expert doctors, whereas her conduct amounted to breach of trust on which this pious institution of marriage is founded. Needless to say that the aforesaid behavior/conduct of the appellant had caused mental and physical cruelty to the respondent husband. 10. With regard to the second ground i.e. desertion on which respondent/Jasbir Singh sought dissolution of his marriage, the findings of learned trial Court are as under: "All the witnesses of the petitioner have deposed regarding convening of panchayats. It was the job of the respondent to rebut that she had refused to join the company of the petitioner but her cross-examination has made the things too clear as she has admitted that the petitioner had convened the panchayat twice and had visited her village alongwith the said panchayats. She has also admitted that in the above said panchayats, the petitioner had request that the matter should be sorted out. Although, the respondent has not stated that her parents had demanded an amount of ` 10/15 lacs for the petitioner, but still she has admitted in her cross-examination that she and her parents had demanded the marriage expenses borne by them. This clearly shows that the refusal to join the company of the petitioner was on the part of the respondent. The admissions made by the respondent have also shown that the petitioner had convened panchayats twice. This shows that the respondent had deserted the petitioner w.e.f. 23.01.2009 for a continues period of two years till the filing of the petition on 21.02.2011. In this way, the petitioner has successfully proved the ground of desertion and as such issue No. 2 is hereby decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent." There being an admission on the part of appellant Manpreet Kaur that respondent Jasbir Singh had convened Panchayat twice and had visited her village for settlement, shows that despite all adversities, the respondent/husband was making efforts for some settlement, but it was the appellant-wife who was not ready to cooperate. Importantly, she admitted that her parents demanded from respondent Jasbir Singh the marriage expenses borne by them, but she neither deposed nor produced any evidence to show that she had ever tried to return to her husband Jasbir Singh after she had left the matrimonial home on 23.01.2009. Importantly, she admitted that her parents demanded from respondent Jasbir Singh the marriage expenses borne by them, but she neither deposed nor produced any evidence to show that she had ever tried to return to her husband Jasbir Singh after she had left the matrimonial home on 23.01.2009. Apparently, she deserted respondent Jasbir Singh continuously for a period of two years preceding institution of the present petition. Thus, finding that respondent Jasbir Singh had been rightly allowed decree of divorce by dissolution of his marriage with the appellant and the findings of the learned trial Court call for no intervention, the instant appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.