Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1728 (PNJ)

Mahesh Kumar v. Sunita Rani

2014-12-12

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, SNEH PRASHAR

body2014
Sneh Prashar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.08.2007 vide which the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955") for dissolution of marriage of appellant-husband Shri Mahesh Kumar with respondent-wife Smt. Sunita Rani, was accepted with costs. The marriage between appellant Mahesh Kumar (hereinafter to be referred as "the appellant") and respondent Sunita Rani (hereinafter to be referred as the "respondent") was solemnized on 28.11.2004 at Raman Mandi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, they cohabited as husband and wife but no issue was born out of the wedlock. Respondent Smt. Sunita Rani filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 praying for dissolution of her marriage with the appellant on the ground that being not satisfied with the dowry given by her paternal uncle, who performed the marriage and spent about ` 60,000/- thereupon, the appellant had started raising demand for additional dowry in the shape of ` 50,000/- in cash. He was addicted to intoxicants and used to beat and torture her. She tolerated the ill behaviour hoping things would improve with passage of time. A number of meetings of Panchayat were convened at the house of her husband for reconciliation but to no better result. Ultimately, she was given severe beatings and was turned out of matrimonial home in the month of February, 2005. She could reach her paternal uncle's house in Raman Mandi very late at night and since then was residing there. Her uncle accompanied by Jugal Kishore, Ashok Kumar, Sunil Kumar, Om Parkash, Babu Ram and Prem Chand etc. went to the appellant but he bluntly reiterated his demand of ` 50,000/- and refused to keep her. Submitting that she had been treated with cruelty by the appellant-husband and had been deserted by him, she prayed for dissolution of their marriage. 2. The appellant-husband contested the petition. He filed written reply raising legal preliminary objection with regard to cause of action etc. Replying on merits, he alleged that the respondent-wife had relations with one Prem Kumar. When he objected to the same, she started picking up quarrel with him on trivial matters and refused to perform the household chores. Being under the thumb of Prem Kumar, she left the matrimonial home on her own alongwith Jugal Singh and Pappu, in his absence in August, 2005. When he objected to the same, she started picking up quarrel with him on trivial matters and refused to perform the household chores. Being under the thumb of Prem Kumar, she left the matrimonial home on her own alongwith Jugal Singh and Pappu, in his absence in August, 2005. While leaving, she took away all jewellery and other valuable articles with her. He filed an application before S.S.P., Bhatinda on 20.05.2006 alleging that he was still ready and willing to keep the respondent-wife with him and had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, but it is the respondent-wife who had deserted him. Denying all allegations of the respondent-wife, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. Respondent filed rejoinder controverting the objections raised by the appellant and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled:-- "(1) Whether the respondent has been treating the petitioner with cruelty, if so, its effect? OPP. (2) Relief." 4. The wife adduced evidence to substantiate her allegations. 5. Considering the evidence and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, learned trial Court finding that the appellant by raising demand of dowry and by beating the respondent and turning her out of the matrimonial home had treated her with cruelty, passed a decree for divorce and dissolved the marriage of the parties in the petition filed by the respondent-wife. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred the instant appeal. 7. Heard the submissions made by Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. 8. As is evident from the rival pleadings of the parties, it was not a matter in issue that respondent Smt. Sunita Rani was legally wedded wife of appellant Mahesh Kumar. They were married on 28.11.2004 and they cohabited as husband and wife upto February, 2005 according to the respondent-wife, but upto August, 2005 as per the appellant-husband. In any case no issue was born out-of the wedlock. Respondent alleged that because the appellant was not satisfied with the dowry given by her paternal uncle who performed the marriage and spent around ` 60,000/-, she was harassed and ill treated by the appellant because of his demand for additional dowry in the shape of cash amounting to ` 50,000/-. Respondent alleged that because the appellant was not satisfied with the dowry given by her paternal uncle who performed the marriage and spent around ` 60,000/-, she was harassed and ill treated by the appellant because of his demand for additional dowry in the shape of cash amounting to ` 50,000/-. She also alleged that the appellant was addicted to various intoxicants and under the influence of the same used to give her beatings and torture her. Ultimately, she was turned out of the matrimonial home in the month of February, 2005. Her paternal uncle alongwith some respectables contacted the appellant but he reiterated his demand of ` 50,000/- and refused to keep her. Although in his written statement the appellant took the stand that respondent had left his house without any rhyme or reason and he was still ready and willing to keep her, but at the same time he also levelled allegations that the respondent had illicit relation with one Prem Kumar and that while leaving the house alongwith Jugal Singh and Pappu, she had taken away with her all jewellery and other valuable articles. 9. The learned trial Court accepting the plea of respondent-wife that she had been treated with cruelty by the appellant-husband recorded the following findings:-- "Our own High Court has observed in Rani v. Parkash Singh, reported in 1996(2) R.R.R. 120 : 1996(2) C.C.C. Page 26 and Usha Rani v. Prem Singh, reported in 2005(2) R.C.R. (Civil) Page 248, that non-payment of maintenance amount by the husband tantamounts to the dismissal of the petition filed by the husband. Our own High Court has further held in Suresh Bala v. Rajbir Singh reported in 1996(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 61 : 1996(2) C.C.C. Page 380 that there is no straight jacket formula of cruelty. Cruelty depends on case to case. Beating by the husband tantamounts to cruelty as well. Herein, the evidence has been furnished that the respondent has demanded dowry from the petitioner and that the demand of dowry is also tantamount to cruelty as it is an offence in our country. There is no rebuttal evidence led on record by the respondent. Cruelty depends on case to case. Beating by the husband tantamounts to cruelty as well. Herein, the evidence has been furnished that the respondent has demanded dowry from the petitioner and that the demand of dowry is also tantamount to cruelty as it is an offence in our country. There is no rebuttal evidence led on record by the respondent. From evidence on the record coupled with the averments contained in petition under Section 13 of the Act, this Court has reached the conclusion that the respondent by raising the demand of dowry and by beating the petitioner and by turning her out from the house has treated her with cruelty. This issue is, thus, proved on record by the petitioner and the same is decided in favour of the petitioner." It is evident from the impugned judgment dated 01.08.2007 passed by learned trial Court that on account of non payment of maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife, the defence of appellant-husband was struck of during the trial proceedings. Surprisingly, on one hand the appellant-husband resisted the prayer for dissolution of his marriage with respondent-wife on the ground that he was ready and willing to keep her and on the other he backed out even from payment of maintenance allowance to her. More so, he levelled a wild allegation of having an illicit relation, against respondent-wife which he could not prove. That by itself amounted to cruelty towards her. He alleged that she was having relations with one Prem Kumar but he could refer to nothing concrete on which he founded such an allegation. In fact, the evidence of the wife remained unrebutted on record and there seems no reason to disbelieve the same. There appears to be no perversity or illegality in the above findings when seen in the light of conduct of the appellant-husband. Thus, finding no ground for intervention in the findings of learned trial Court, the appeal is hereby dismissed.