Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Amarjeet Singh vs Of on 29 August, 2016
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 236 of 2010.
Reserved on : 23.08.2016.
.
Decided on : 29th August, 2016.
Dr. Amarjeet Singh .....Appellant/Petitioner.
Versus
of
Smt. Vijay Laxmi ....Respondent.
Coram: rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr. P. P. Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
The instant appeal stands directed against the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, Himachal Pradesh, on 31.05.2010 in H.M.A. Petition No. 16 of 2007, whereby it refused the according qua the petitioner a decree for dissolution of his marital ties with the respondent.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:05:55 :::HCHP...2...
2. The petitioner/appellant herein standing aggrieved .
by the rendition of the learned District Judge hence concerts to reverse it by preferring an appeal therefrom before this Court.
of
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claimed the respondent to be his legally wedded wife. Out of their wedlock one female child has born and the child is living rt with the respondent. The petitioner has further pleaded and claimed that the relations between the parties remained cordial till September, 2004 and when on 19.8.2006 to 24.8.2006 the petitioner remained on official tour and returned to his residence in District Kinnaur then he came to know that the respondent has filed some proceedings with the police by leveling false allegations of her beatings and keeping some mistress. The petitioner further claimed that he was summoned by the Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo where he filed written reply and the respondent withdrew her complaint by showing her intention not to live with the petitioner and thereby the respondent has treated ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:05:55 :::HCHP ...3...
the petitioner with cruelty as she did not join his company for .
the last more than three years and thereby the parties are living separately. Hence, he sought decree for divorce for dissolution of his marital ties with the respondent.
of
4. The respondent contested the petition and filed reply. In the reply, the respondent has admitted the relationship between the parties including the off spring as rt pleaded in the petition, however, the respondent has further pleaded and claimed that the relations remain cordial till August,2006 and thereafter the petitioner started picking up quarrel with the respondent under the influence of liquor and even the petitioner had removed the ornaments of the respondent including her Mangal Sutar and thereby sold the same to satisfy his lust for liquor and to meet out the expenses of his concubine and thereby she lodged true and correct report against the petitioner and when the petitioner assured the respondent to maintain her properly thereby she withdrew her complaint. The respondent has denied of hers making false allegations against the petitioner as pleaded in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:05:55 :::HCHP ...4...
the petition and has further claimed that she is ready to join .
the company of the petitioner in case of his undertaking not to pick up quarrel and to maltreat her and thereby to provide all the bare necessities of the life. The respondent has denied of treatment of the petitioner with cruelty as alleged in the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial rt Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:-
1. Whether the respondent teated the petitioner with cruelty?OPP
2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner, as alleged?OPP
3. Relief.
6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned District Judge, he dismissed the petition of the petitioner/appellant herein.
7. Now the petitioner/appellant herein has instituted the instant appeal before this Court wherein he has assailed the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned District Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:05:55 :::HCHP...5...
8. In the apposite petition for divorce, the petitioner .
had made trite specific averments qua his psyche standing beset with mental cruelty arising from the respondent leveling false/frivolous allegations against him qua his maintaining of concubine/mistress. He with specificity averred therein of the allegations aforesaid constituted against him by the respondent standing embedded in a complaint preferred by rt the respondent before the Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur at Recokng Peo, whereupon he stood summoned therebefore.
He had contended of hence accentuated cruelty standing perpetrated upon him by the respondent. The petitioner had before the learned District Judge led evidence in support of the averments constituted in the petition, apart therefrom supplemental to his oral testimony, he therebefore adduced Ex.PB and Ex.PC holding corroborative proclamations of the respondent leveling allegations against him qua his maintaining a concubine also his belabouring her besides as averred by him, his thereupon standing constrained to furnish a reply thereto.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:05:55 :::HCHP...6...
9. Even though, before the learned District Judge, the .
respondent had contested by filing a reply, the truth of the averments aforesaid cast by the petitioner in his petition.
However, her reply in repudiation to the averments reared by of the petitioner in his petition is both vague besides nebulous holding no specificity with precision besides is bereft of exactitude in timings whereon she stood subjected to rt belabourings by the petitioner also it does not hold therewithin the name of the concubine with whom the petitioner is alleged by her to maintain adulterous relations.
Even otherwise, the reply furnished by the respondent to the petition for divorce instituted by the petitioner, exaggerates upon the manifestations occurring in Ex.PB. Likewise when her testimony besides the testimonies of RWs hold therewithin digressions vis-a-vis her reply to the apposite petition hence rendering them to be discardable.
10. However, the learned District Judge has in a rough shod, mechanical manner dehors his meteing reverence to exhibits aforesaid holding visible display of the psyche of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:05:55 :::HCHP ...7...
petitioner standing encumbered with immense mental turmoil .
dehors the factum of the depictions held therewithin holding any iota or truth whereupon hence the petitioner had categorically displayed qua his standing entitled to on the of ground of cruelty to a decree for divorce, its standing refused to be accorded to him under the impugned rendition per se ingrains it with a vice of his not attending to the relevant rt besides germane evidence rather his untenably discarding its probative worth.
11. The factum of the respondent under Ex. PC casting aspersions qua the character of the petitioner also hers therein alleging qua his holding adulterous relations with concubines whereupon he suffered the ordeal of his standing summoned by the Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, foments an obvious inference of the respondent subjecting him to mental cruelty hence foisting in him an entitlement to obtain a decree for dissolution of his marital ties with her. The inference aforesaid as stands drawn by this Court stands lent succor from a decision of the Hon'ble Apex ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:05:55 :::HCHP ...8...
Court reported in K. Srinivas versus K. Sunita, (2014)16 .
SCC 34, the relevant paragraph No.5 whereof stands extracted hereinafter:-
"5. The respondent wife has admitted in her cross-
examination that she did not mention all the incidents on of which her complaint is predicated in her statement under Section 161 CrPC. It is not her case that she had actually rt narrated all these facts to the investigating officer, but that he had neglected to mention them. This, it seems to us, is clearly indicative of the fact that the criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought. We affirm the view of the High Court that th criminal complaint was "ill advised". Adding thereto is the factor that the High Court had been informed of the acquittal of the appellant husband and members of his family. In these circumstances, the High Court ought to have concluded that the respondent wife knowingly and intentionally filed a false complaint, calculated to embarrass the incarcerate the appellant and seven members of his family and that such conduct unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:05:55 :::HCHP
...9...
12. Furthermore with communications occurring in .
Ex.PB of her marriage with the petitioner standing irretrievably broken down wherefrom it is apt to clinchingly conclude of with her marital ties with the petitioner standing of irretrievably broken down irretrievably hence, the rendition of a decree of severance of their marital ties would be both just and expedient.
rt
13. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the marriage inter se the petitioner/appellant and the respondent herein is ordered to be dissolved under Section 13(1) (i)(i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In sequel, the judgment and decree impugned before this Court is quashed and set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Sureshwar Thakur) 29 th August, 2016. Judge.
(jai) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:05:55 :::HCHP