Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 315 (RAJ)

Atar Kaur (Smt. ) v. Gurmeet Singh

2018-01-23

G.R.MOOLCHANDANI, PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2018
JUDGMENT : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent sought annulment of the marriage on ground of cruelty and pleaded that the marriage was solemnized on 5.12.1982. Two daughters were born to the parties. Both couple were working. Married life took its tool. Attitude of the appellant changed. The appellant started quarreling. On 8.3.2006 when the respondent returned home from the office, he saw the appellant beating the two daughters. He asked the daughters as to what had happened. They said that when they demanded food their mother started beating them. When he confronted the appellant she quarreled with him and went away to her parental home. 3. The appellant denied the allegations in the petition seeking divorce and pertaining to the incident which took place on 8.3.2006 pleaded that her sister Rajinder Kaur used to come to their house to teaching the children and she suspected illicit relationship between her husband and her sister. On 8.3.2006 fight took place between the couple because the brother of the appellant came to their residence and took with him Rajinder Kaur, which was not liked by her husband. 4. During evidence the daughters deposed facts in favour of the mother and against the father denying that on 8.3.2006 they ever made a complaint that their mother had beaten them when they demanded food. 5. After evidence was recorded the husband sought amendment of the petition by drawing attention to the written-statement filed by the wife in which she made allegations of suspected relationship between the husband and the sister of the appellant. As per the respondent, said pleading constituted cruelty for the reason the appellant could not prove adultery. 6. Both the parties made a statement that they do not want to lead any further evidence. 7. Granting divorce to the respondent the reasoning given by the learned Trial Judge is that false allegation of adultery is cruelty by itself. Argument in appeal is that the appellant never made a positive allegation of adultery, she simply said that she suspected illicit relationship between her sister and her husband and that on 8.3.2006 when her sister had left her husband raised an issue of his sister-in-law leaving and that led to the quarrel. 8. Argument in appeal is that the appellant never made a positive allegation of adultery, she simply said that she suspected illicit relationship between her sister and her husband and that on 8.3.2006 when her sister had left her husband raised an issue of his sister-in-law leaving and that led to the quarrel. 8. There is merit in the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant regarding the reasoning given by the learned Trial Judge but, the decree for divorce must stand on a different reason. In her cross-examination the appellant admitted to the fact that since the day she suspected her husband having illicit relationship with her sister, she denied sex to him. Denial of sex is an act of cruelty. Of-course, the husband did not plead so in the petition seeking divorce, but in a matrimonial relationships it is a duty of the court to see what evidence surfaces and thereafter decide whether the matrimonial bond has to continue or requires to be snapped. Albeit for different reasons, we uphold the decree granting divorce and dismiss the appeal. 9. No costs.