Punjab-Haryana High Court
Radha Rani vs Har Bhagwan on 23 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)135PLR487
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.
1. Wife is aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce.
2. Marriage between the parties was solemnised on 26.3.1985. One female child was born after one year of the marriage. However, as per the allegations of the husband, wife left matrimonial home on 27.5.1988. On 28.5.1988, she got registered FIR No. 3 for an offence under Sections 498-A and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The husband was acquitted in the said criminal case on 29.5.1993. It is further alleged that during the pendency of the trial on 24.4.1992, husband was assaulted by the brothers of the wife namely Ravi Dutt and Sunil Kumar and maternal uncle Mahabir and mother Geeta Devi. A criminal case for an offence under Sections 323 and 506 IPC was registered against the above named persons vide FIR No. 200 dated 28.4.1992. Both the brothers and maternal uncle and mother of the wife were convicted and fined Rs. 300/- each. The husband has also alleged that the wife moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein husband is making payment of Rs. 900/- per month as maintenance to the respondent and her daughter. It is, thus pleaded that the wife has treated the husband with cruelty. He has suffered mental as well as physical cruelty and apprehended danger to his life. The wife is residing separately since 27.5.1988.
3. The wife controverted the allegations by filing written statement and pleaded that the husband is estopped from filing the petition by his own acts and conduct. She is ready to live with the respondent. She denied that she left matrimonial home on 27.5.1988 and got a false case lodged against the husband. She denied the assault on husband by her brothers, maternal uncle and mother. She submitted that the husband and his mother treated her with cruelty as they are greedy persons. On many occasions they have given beating to her. On 27.5.1988 she was turned out of matrimonial home after giving severe beatings. It was submitted that the husband has been acquitted in the criminal case by giving the benefit of doubt but that does not mean that he was falsely implicated. She stated that she belongs to a poor family and the case was not properly conducted by the prosecution.
4. The husband filed replication controverting the allegations made in the written statement. After framing the issues, the parties led their evidence. The husband produced his mother Vidya Devi as PW2 and he himself appeared as PW1. He also produced documents Ex.P.1 to P.5. On the other hand, wife appeared as RW1 and produced documents Exs. R.1 to R.3. The learned trial court accepted the petition for dissolution of marriage holding that initiation of proceedings by the wife under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC which was resulted into acquittal amounts to cruelty. The filing of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and conviction of relations of the wife for an offence under Sections 323 and 506 IPC were considered an act of cruelty on the part of the wife sufficient to dissolve the marriage between the parties.
5. In the present appeal, I have heard Sh. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance gone through the record of the case.
6. The husband has enumerated instances of cruelty and sought dissolution of marriage on the ground that the relations between the parties are deteriorated to the extent that it was not possible for the husband to live with the wife under one roof and it will be harmful and injurious for him having further relations with the wife. The learned trial Court has relied upon Ex.P1, an application moved by Smt. Vidya Devi, mother of the husband regarding giving threat to her, her son, the husband and her sister-in-law by the brothers, mother and maternal uncle of the wife. Ex.P.2 is an application moved by the husband on 19.10.1993 apprehending danger to his life at the hands of Ravi Dutt, brother of the wife.
7. No doubt, it is correct that the relations of the wife have been convicted for an offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each but the fact remains that there was no allegation against the appellant in the said proceedings. The effect of the actions of the brothers of the wife cannot fall on the appellant. Still further reliance of the learned trial court on the judgment in FIR lodged by the wife for an offence under Sections 498-A and 323 IPCs not sufficient to hold that the wife has treated the husband with cruelty. Initiation of legal proceedings for the redressal of the rights or for punishment to the wrong doer cannot be said to be acts of cruelty. No proceedings have been initiated against the wife to the effect that the prosecution by her was malicious. Similarly, because she was not able to prove her allegations beyond a reasonable doubt so as to warrant the conviction does not mean that the allegations have caused cruelty. The judgment of the criminal court is only relevant to the affect that the husband is acquitted but were acquitted from criminal proceedings by giving benefit of doubt cannot be termed as acts of cruelty.
8. The learned trial court has also returned a finding that it is the wife who has deserted the matrimonial home. It has been found that the criminal cases were initiated by wife vindicating her rights through the process of the courts and therefore, such criminal cases cannot be called an act of cruelty. Once finding on issue No. 1 has been reversed that the wife has not treated the husband with cruelty, the husband is not entitled to seek dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. The evidence on record suggests that the wife was given severe beatings and was turned out of matrimonial home. She has stated that she is ready and willing to reside with the husband. Therefore, there was no animus deserandi on the part of the wife but it is the husband who has created such circumstances so as to force the wife to leave the matrimonial home. Thus, the findings on issue No. 2 are also not tenable and are hereby reversed.
9. Since the learned trial court has dissolved the marriage only on the basis of acquittal of the husband in criminal case and conviction of near relations of the wife and other legal proceedings, I am of the opinion that reasoning given by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar is not sustainable in law.
The findings recorded by the learned trial court suffer from illegality and irregularity. The view taken by the learned trial court is not a view permissible in law. Consequently, I set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and dismiss thepetition for the dissolution of marriage with no order as to costs.