Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lalita vs Om Parkash on 29 April, 1994
Equivalent citations: I(1995)DMC573, (1994)108PLR107
JUDGMENT A.P. Chowdhri, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Decree of District Judge, Narnaul dated 6.1.1992 dismissing appellant's petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Lalita, appellant was married with Om Parkash-respondent on 27.11-1982 at Narnaul. On the same day appellant's elder sister Lalina was married with the elder brother of the respondent. After the marriage both the girls lived in the house of their in laws for two days and thereafter they visited their parental house alongwith their husbands and after staying there for a day returned to their matrimonial home. On reaching the village Rudraul, respondent's elder brother Bihari complained to his father in the presence of petitioner and her sister that the articles of dowry which the petitioner's father had undertaken to give had not been given by him. On enquiry by petitioner's elder sister Lalina as to what was not given, her husband Bihari told them that their father had promised to give them a scooter and he had failed to do so. Thereupon, Bihari slapped the petitioner's sister and the petitioner and her sister started weeping. No food was given to them on that evening. What is worse, respondent and his elder brother returned to the house late at night in an inebriated condition and the elder brother of the respondent hurled abuses on the petitioner as well as her sister and their father. The petitioner rushed to her elder sister as she got frightened on seeing the behaviour of the respondent and his brother and the state of intoxication in which they were using vulgar language to them. Lalina elder sister of the petitioner was, however, given severe beating There was no lady in the house except the grand mother of the respondent who was too old and illiterate to intervene and be of any help to the petitioner and her sister. On the next morning, the petitioner's elder sister assured the respondent and his brother that she would manage a scooter from her father on the next visit and this helped to case the tension. A close relation of the petitioner from the parental side happened to visit the matrimonial house to enquire about their welfare. The elder sister of the petitioner narrated the whole story to him and requested him to give the message to her father that he should send someone to fetch them. On about 7th day of the marriage Arjun Lal came to village Rudraul and petitioner and her sister accompanied him to their parents' house. When they were leaving, they were told by the respondent not to disclose about the incident which took place earlier in the matrimonial home otherwise the would suffer the consequences when they come next. On reaching their parent's house, the petitioner and her sister made it quite clear to their parent's that under no circumstances would they go to their matrimonial home. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had repudiated her marriage in January, 1983 on attaining the age of 18 years and since then she had not resumed cohabitation. She had been residing with her parents and had received further education in order to stand on her own feet.
3. Dissolution of marriage was sought on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The petition was contested. The Trial Court framed the following issues :--
1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged in the petition ? OPP.
2. Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner for the last more than 2 years preceding the presentation of petition ? OPP.
3. Relief."
4. Under issue No. 1 on an evaluation of the evidence, the Trial Court recorded the finding against the petitioner. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the petitioner having not been pressed on her behalf. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the wife has preferred this appeal. Fresh re-conciliation efforts were made especially as the respondent-husband was keen that the appellant should appear in their Court personally so that he may be satisfied that she is really not willing to return to the matrimonial home. Accordingly, the appellant was called and she appeared in Court but conciliation was not possible.
5. Admittedly, there is arrear of more than Rs. 12,000/- on account of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses which the husband was directed to pay and which are in arrears. More than one opportunity was given to the husband to pay the amount or even a part thereof in order to show that he had intention to comply with the order. Ultimately he stated that he is not in position to pay any amount at all. Instead of disposing the appeal on the ground of respondent-husband's failure to pay the maintenance ordered by this Court, deem it fair to deal with it on merits.
6. It may be pointed out at once that two features of the case which are very significant deserve to be noticed at the out set. The first feature is that it is admitted case that the petitioner remained in the matrimonial home only in the initial few days numbering 4 to 7 days in all and thereafter he had not remained in the matrimonial home. The second feature is that even though the husband pleaded that when the wife was studying in I.T.I. at Narnaul, she used to spend weekends with the respondent. In other words, this plea was raised in order to counter the plea of the Petitioner that she had repudiated her marriage in January, 1983 and had not resumed cohabitation since then.
The Trial Court on the consideration of the evidence on record recorded the finding that "there is no weighty, cogent and reliable evidence on record to show that while studying in Narnaul the petitioner had been visiting the respondent in Rudraul on the weekends, or that she remained visiting him till 1986."
7. One wonders, what was the compelling reasons why a Hindu girl after marrying in accordance with the wishes of parents of both sides, decided not to return to the matrimonial home only after the stay of about 7 days following the marriage. The petitioner has come up with a definite theory, namely, that she as well as her elder sister were subjected to both physical and mental cruelty and behaviour and conduct of respondent and his elder brother is such that they vowed not to visit the matrimonial home again. The respondent on the other hand has not been able to suggest any plausible and convincing reason for break up. All that he suggested was that after having improved her qualifications, the petitioner and her father informed them that the petitioner is superior to the respondent and his own status was much higher as compared to the father of the respondent. This is not the least convincing because while arranging the marriage by the parents relevant consideration including the status of the family is duly taken into account. In the nature of things, there is no going back on that decision.
8. The learned Trial Court has discarded the evidence of the petitioner and her father as well as her sister's son on the short ground that the statements were discrepant. The discrepancy relied upon pertains to certain dates. In my view. it is an altogether artificial approach to reject the whole testimony merely on the ground of some discrepancy in the dates of certein events. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court has failed to deal with the substance of the matter. Most of us and especially illiterate people keep only a rough estimate of various dates of events. Anything more than that would be asking for something which never was nor would ever be.
9. The Trial Court again fell into an error, in my view, in saying that the period of 4/5 days was too short to come to the conclusion that the respondent was suilty of cruelty. Reference was made to certain observations occurring in an earlier decision of this Court in Santosh Kumar v. Parveen Kumar. A.I.R. 1987 Punjab and Haryana, 33 : [1987(2) All India Hindu Law Reporter 491 (Pb. & Hry.)]. I am unable to read the observations as meant to apply as principle of law. It must be read in the facts and circumstance of that particular case. It will depend on the enormity of the conduct and the offence caused to the opposite party rather than the period during which the offence is given. One can easily visualise a situation where the cruelty is so clear and pronounced as to leave no manner of doubt in the mind of opposite party about its nature. No hard and fast rule can be laid down that the opposite party must suffer for a certain minimum period before he or she can be held to have justifiably decided to walk out of the marriage because of the alleged cruelty.
10. The marriage of the elder sister-Lalina has already been dissolved by the Court by an ex pane order as the husband-Bihari Lal in that case failed to pay the maintenance allowance ordered by the Court and was proceeded ex pane.
11. The case of repudiation has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. The Trial Court itself has held that after the alleged repudiation in January, 1983, there was no resumption of cohabitation and the plea raised by the husband was not acceptable.
12. After careful consideration and for the reasons discussed above this appeal succeeds and it is allowed. The marriage between the parties is hereby dissolved.
13. A copy the order be given free of cost to both the parties.