Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naranjan Singh vs Harjit Kaur on 28 January, 2009
F.A.O.No.52-M of 1999 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O.No.52-M of 1999
Date of decision: 28.01.2009
Naranjan Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Harjit Kaur ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. R.K.Battas, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
The appellant-husband filed a plea under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage on allegation which may be indicated hereunder:-
The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 10.6.1969, according to Sikh rites, in the presence of the Holy Guru Granth Sahib. Three children ( Raj Pal Kaur, Rupinder Singh and Charandeep Singh, aged 26, 23 and 19 years respectively) were born out of their union.
Raj Pal Kaur is married; while the other two children are unmarried. The parties lived a happy matrimonial house for a period of 25 years, However, life become hell for them for the last about three years on account of mental and physical cruelty caused by the respondent-wife to the appellant-husband. The appellant, an Ex-serviceman, was compulsorily retired on medical ground on account of backbone problem. On account F.A.O.No.52-M of 1999 -2- **** thereof, the appellant is not able to perform matrimonial obligation i.e. he is weak in performing sexual act with his wife. For that reason, the respondent-wife would pick up quarrel with him, and even belabour him by catching his beard and pulling it out of hair . The appellant is presently posted at Rampura Phul, as a Water-man in the FCI. One Joginder Singh and his wife Surjit Kaur are living in the vicinity of his residence at Rampura Phul. The appellant is on visiting term with them. The respondent-wife levelled a false allegation that the appellant has illicit intimacy with Surjit Kaur aforementioned. On that premise, the respondent and her two sons belaboured the appellant. The levelling of that allegation and the belabouring thereafter caused mental and physical cruelty to the appellant.
It was on the above plea that the appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.
The respondent-wife denied the allegations and reiterated the allegations that the appellant-husband had indeed developed illicit relationship with Surjit Kaur. Further allegation in the context is that Joginder Singh, husband of Surjit Kaur aforementioned, has no source of livelihood and it is the appellant only who is providing funds for running their house hold. The Trial proceeded on the following issues:-
"1. Whether the respondent has treated the with cruelty? If so to what effects? OPA
2. Relief"
The learned Trial Judge recorded a finding adverse to the appellant under issue no.1 by observing that by levelling a false allegation, the respondent-wife had caused mental cruelty to the appellant-husband. In recording that finding, the learned Trial Judge drew sustenance from the F.A.O.No.52-M of 1999 -3- **** fact that the respondent-wife had launched proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. against the appellant-husband and Surjit Kaur aforementioned. Both of them were discharged in those proceedings by the Court. The appellant-husband had also to undergo arrest in that case.
I have heard Mr. R.K.Battas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and have carefully gone through the record.
None appeared on behalf of the respondent to assist this Court.
The respondent-wife is proved to have launched proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. against the appellant-husband on the allegation that latter had developed illicit relationship with Surjit Kaur. That the appellant-husband and Surjit Kaur aforementioned came to be discharged in that case is apparent from a perusal of order dated 19.9.1996 of the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barnala. The only inference deducible from the circumstances of the case is that the respondent-wife had caused mental cruelty to the appellant-husband by levelling a false allegation against him.
It would be relevant to notice here that the respondent-wife conceded in the course of examination that Joginder Singh, husband of Surjit Kaur, was alive and lives in that very house where Surjit Kaur, her two sons and three daughters are living. Though she claimed to have seen the appellant-husband and Surjit Kaur in a compromising position, she was not in a position to indicate the date and month in which she had done so. Her daughter Jaswinder Kaur appeared as RW-1 and testified that the appellant-husband is having illicit relations with Surjit Kaur. However, in the course of cross-examination, she pleaded want of knowledge about the fact whether Surjit Kaur is residing with her husband and children in their F.A.O.No.52-M of 1999 -4- **** own house or not. She claimed that she brought the fact of illicit relationship aforementioned to the notice of her brothers. However, those brothers were not examined at the trial to own up the attribution aforementioned.
There can be no worse act of mental cruelty on the part of a spouse than that to allege the other spouse was having illicit intimacy with another individual. Such an act was held to be mental cruelty by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Smt. Pranati Chatterjee Vs. Shri Goutam Chatterjee 2006 (2) All India Hindu Law Reporter 21.
In the light of fore-going discussion, the appeal shall stand allowed. The impugned judgment shall stand quashed. The marriage between the parties shall stand dissolved with effect from the date of this order.
January 28, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge