Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 484 (PNJ)

Bharat Bhushan v. Raksha Rani

2015-03-24

M.JEYAPAUL, RAJ RAHUL GARG

body2015
JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - Appellant Bharat Bhushan has challenged the dismissal of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by him seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 2. The appellant has contended that he married the respondent on 13.11.1992. The respondent started maltreating the appellant and his parents from the very beginning. She had been taunting and insulting the mother of the appellant. She also beat the appellant and his mother. The respondent used to insult the appellant before his friends and relatives. She called him a worthless fellow. She levelled allegation of adultery that the appellant had developed an illicit intimacy with his brother’s wife. The respondent left the company of the appellant without any reason in the month of June, 1996 and thus she deserted him without sufficient cause. 3. The respondent-wife contended in her written statement that she lived like an Indian woman with honour and respect until she was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial house. The appellant and his family members threatened her with dire consequences. In the month of September, 1994 when the respondent was pregnant by four months, she turned out of the matrimonial house with three dresses, questioning the paternity of the child in the womb. The appellant is guilty of desertion and cruelty towards the respondent. 4. On the side of the appellant, the appellant was examined as PW1 and the neighbours, namely, Sham Lal Garg as PW2, Bal Krishan as PW3 and Prem Chand as PW4 and Hardial Singh as PW5 were examined. 5. On the side of the respondent, the respondent was examined as RW1, her father Jagmohan Lal as RW2 while her relatives, namely, Tarsem Chand and Anil Kumar were examined s RW3 and RW4, repsectively. 6. The trial Court having adverted to the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish the plea of cruelty and desertion as set up by him for seeking divorce. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW2 to PW5 who were the neighbours of the appellant. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW2 to PW5 who were the neighbours of the appellant. The abuses heaped on the appellant and his mother by the respondent, the ill-treatment meted-out to the appellant and his family members, the unfounded allegation of adultery made by the respondent against the appellant and the desertion without rhyme or reason spoken to by PW2 to PW5 and corroborated by the evidence of PW1, have not been properly evaluated by the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent would repel the above submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and submit that the mother of the appellant was not examined to establish that the respondent abused, maltreated and beat her. None of the relatives of the appellant was examined to establish the unfounded allegation of adultery made by the respondent as against the appellant. It is his submission that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the appellant praying for a decree of divorce. 9. We thoroughly examined the entire records, in the background of the above rival submissions made by the counsel on either side. 10. PW1 Bharat Bhushan is the husband of the respondent. His evidence without any support from the other witnesses cannot be relied upon to grant the decree of divorce, more especially when the plea of the appellant is hotly contested by the respondent. PW2 Sham Lal Garg deposed that it was only the appellant who told him that the respondent used to beat him and his mother. In other words, he was not an eye witness to the alleged beating given by the respondent to the appellant and his mother. He has categorically stated that there was no quarrel that took place in his presence. His affirmative version is that the behaviour of the respondent was quite normal. The above evidence of PW2 does not support the plea set up by the appellant. 11. PW3 Bal Krishan very modestly admitted during the course of deposition that he could not say anything about the behaviour of the respondent with her mother-in-law. But the fact remains that PW3 has spoken about some quarrel between the appellant and the respondent. PW4 Prem Chand deposed that he also witnessed the quarrel between the appellant and the respondent. 11. PW3 Bal Krishan very modestly admitted during the course of deposition that he could not say anything about the behaviour of the respondent with her mother-in-law. But the fact remains that PW3 has spoken about some quarrel between the appellant and the respondent. PW4 Prem Chand deposed that he also witnessed the quarrel between the appellant and the respondent. He stated that people gathered in large numbers many times near the house of the appellant, during the course of quarrel between the appellant and his wife. PW5 Hardial Singh deposed that the respondent alleged that the appellant had an illicit relationship with his brother’s wife. He also spoke about the quarrel between the appellant and the respondent he witnessed. 12. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the most important witness, namely, the mother-in-law was not examined to establish that she was abused, taunted, maltreated and beaten by the respondent. The evidence of RW2 to RW5 as regards the physical attack launched by the respondent pales into insignificance on account of non-examination of the mother of the appellant. 13. The appellant has given the names of Panchayatdars who participated in the Panchayat to settle amicably the matrimonial issues arisen between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant having not examined any of those Panchayatdars named in the petition, preferred to examine PW2 to PW5 who had admittedly not participated in the Panchayat organized by the appellant. Therefore, in our view, the trial Court has rightly cast a doubt on the version of PW2 to PW5. Further, it is quite natural for the neighbours of the appellant to lend support to the appellant who married the respondent hailing from 20 kms. away from the matrimonial village. 14. The allegation of adultery reportedly made by the respondent was not specifically drawn to the attention of the respondent, when she was in the witness box. One of the family members of the appellant should have been examined to prove that the serious allegation of adultery, without any basis, was levelled by the respondent against the appellant. The absence of evidence from one of the members of the family throws doubt on the supportive testimony of PW2 to PW5. 15. It appears from the evidence on record that there had been some quarrel between the appellant and the respondent. The absence of evidence from one of the members of the family throws doubt on the supportive testimony of PW2 to PW5. 15. It appears from the evidence on record that there had been some quarrel between the appellant and the respondent. In a matrimonial life, petty quarrels that easily erupt on and off cannot be avoided. Even assuming that there was some misbehaviour on the side of the respondent, the appellant cannot claim that he did not contribute anything for such a misbehaviour. One will have to put up with such eventualities in the course of matrimonial life. Petty quarrels that take place in a matrimonial life cannot be a solid ground to grant the relief of divorce. The evidence of RW2 and RW3 would go to establish that the respondent had been thrown out from the matrimonial home even when she was pregnant. There is no evidence that the appellant took steps to bring back the respondent to the matrimonial home. A woman who had left the matrimonial home with a baby in her womb, would have been longing to join the company of the husband. But unfortunately, she could not join the appellant as no efforts had been taken by the appellant to get her back to matrimonial home. 16. In view of the above, we find that the appellant failed to establish either cruelty or desertion as alleged against the respondent. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the evidence and come to a right conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to a decree of divorce. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. --------------------