Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 465 (HP)

Vinoj Kumar v. Pushpa Devi

2014-04-25

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. (oral) Noticeably, appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance pendente lite which order has yet not been complied with. 2. Appellant-husband has filed the instant appeal, assailing the judgment dated 15.1.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P. in HMA Petition No.42 of 2009, titled as Vinoj Kumarvs. Smt. Pushpa Devi. The Court below dismissed the appellant’s petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) seeking dissolution of his marriage. 3. Divorce is sought on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Appellant-husband alleged that his wife (respondent herein) is in a habit of leaving the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause. Also, she is short tempered and headstrong. 4. Law with regard to cruelty and desertion is now well settled. The trial Court rightly referred to and relied upon decisions rendered by the apex Court in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 , Shoba Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121 , V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat., 1994(1) SCC 337 , Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandy, (2002) 2 SCC 73 , Gananth Pattnaik vs. State of Orissa, (2002) 2 SCC 619 , Parveen Mehta vs. Inderjet Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706 , A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 , Lachman Uttamchand Kirpalani vs. Meena alias Mota, AIR 1964 SC 40 , Dharam Dev Malik vs. Smt. Raj Rani, AIR 1984 Delhi 389, Rajinder Kumari vs. Padam Parkash, AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 232, Harprit Singh Anand vs. State of W.B. (2004) 10 SCC 505 , Kanchan Devi vs. Promod Kumar Mittal, (1996) 8 SCC 90 , Swati Verma vs. Rajan Verma (2004) 1 SCC 123 , Madhuri Mehta vs. Meet Verma (1997) 11 SCC 81 , Sandhya Rani vs. Kalyanram Narayanam, (1994) Supp. (2) SCC 588 Chandrakala Menonr vs. Vipin Menon (1993) 2 SCC 6 , Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Manju Sharma, (2009) 6 SCC 379 , Neelam Kumar vs. Dayarani (2010) SCCR 665. 5. To establish the factum of cruelty and desertion, learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to the testimony of appellant-Vinoj Kumar (PW-7). According to the appellant, his wife failed to perform her routine matrimonial obligations. 5. To establish the factum of cruelty and desertion, learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to the testimony of appellant-Vinoj Kumar (PW-7). According to the appellant, his wife failed to perform her routine matrimonial obligations. She did not join the marriage ceremony of appellant’s brother and despite compromise (Ex.RX-1 and RX-2) entered into between the parties, she failed to improve her conduct. 6. Ex.RX-1 and RX-2 are in fact admissions made by the appellant of his past mistakes and acts of cruelty meted out to the respondent wife. From the recital, it is evident that appellant failed to maintain his wife, despite assurances made out in presence of members of the family. 7. The fact that respondent is staying separately is not in dispute. In any event, it stands established through the testimony of Shri Kishan Chand (PW-5), who is the Ward Member. 8. Having perused testimonies of remaining witnesses, namely Smt. Kanta Devi (PW-2) and Shri Kesar Singh (PW-4), I find that the allegations made are vague and unspecific with regard to date, time and place of cruelty and desertion. It also cannot be said that respondent-wife has willfully deserted her husband. On the contrary, respondent-wife has placed on record judgment (Ex.RW-3/B) establishing the fact that appellant stood convicted for the crime committed under various penal provisions of the land. Noticeably, proceedings were got initiated by the present respondent, against the present appellant, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Judgment dated 1.5.2012 (Ex.RW-3/A) is on record to this effect. In the said proceedings, appellant stands directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance to the present respondent. 9. As such, it cannot be said that respondent-wife has caused any cruelty to the appellant, entitling him for a decree of divorce on such ground. The factum of willful desertion on the part of respondent-wife and her intention of not continuing her matrimonial relations with the appellant cannot be said to have been established on record. On the other hand, she was forced to leave the matrimonial house and company of her husband. 10. The factum of willful desertion on the part of respondent-wife and her intention of not continuing her matrimonial relations with the appellant cannot be said to have been established on record. On the other hand, she was forced to leave the matrimonial house and company of her husband. 10. As such, having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that there is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the judgment dated 15.1.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P. in HMA Petition No.42 of 2009, titled as Vinoj Kumarvs. Smt. Pushpa Devi. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations, present appeal, devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.