Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushma Taya vs Arvind on 1 December, 2014
Equivalent citations: AIR 2015 (NOC) 388 (P. & H.)
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal
FAO No.M-324 of 2014 -:1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
FAO No.M-324 of 2014.
DATE OF DECISION: December 01, 2014.
Sushma Taya ....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
Arvind ....RESPONDENT.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SNEH PRASHAR
****
Present: Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate for the appellant.
****
SNEH PRASHAR, J.
1. By way of this appeal, Smt. Sushma Taya-appellant (hereinafter to be referred as "the appellant") assailed the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, allowing the petition in H.M.A. case No.56 dated 15.11.2011/09.09.2013 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1955") filed against her by her husband Arvind-petitioner-respondent.
2. The facts which need elaboration are as under:- JITENDER 2015.01.14 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-324 of 2014 -:2 :-
The marriage between appellant Sushma Taya and respondent Arvind was solemnized on 04.12.2008 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Karnal. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife but no issue was born out of the wedlock.
Arvind alleged that on the very first night of their marriage, the appellant disclosed to him that she had been married without her consent as she was having relations with some other person. Her behaviour towards him and his family members was rude and abusive. She always refused to perform household chores and also declined to share bed with him. She used filthy language towards him and his family members and wasted his income on luxurious items. She wanted him to live separately from his parents and when he denied to accept her demand, she threatened to commit suicide and to involve him and his family in false criminal case and also levelled false allegation on the character of his father. Just after 10 days of the marriage, she left the matrimonial home. Her uncle Ram Kumar and brother Balwinder tried to make her understand when he visited her parental home to bring her home, but she bluntly refused to join his conjugal company. A false First Information Report was got registered by her against him and his family members which also amounted to cruelty towards him.
3. Appellant contested the petition. In the written statement filed by her, she pleaded that a huge sum was spent on marriage and dowry by her parents, but just after two days of marriage her husband and his family members started showing resentment for having been given JITENDER 2015.01.14 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-324 of 2014 -:3 :- inadequate dowry. Their verbal taunts gradually turned into violent acts. Her husband Arvind demanded `40,000/- for starting a business and when she refused to convey his demand to her mother, she was ill treated by him. Her mother came to know about the torture being given to her. She somehow arranged the amount of `40,000/- by borrowing from relatives and gave the same to her husband, who spent the amount on drinking and gambling. His father was having a lustful eye on her and used to utter obscene words. When she informed her husband about his conduct, he became furious and gave beatings to her saying that she was raising false allegation.
Appellant further alleged that on 13.01.2009 on the festival of Lohri, her mother visited her matrimonial home and brought valuable clothes and sweets etc. but her husband demanded a car and when she resisted he gave a slap to her. Noticing the reddish impression on her face, her mother enquired about the reason and on being told requested her husband and family members not to raise demand or ill treat her. However, on 15.02.2009, she was given severe beatings by her husband and was turned out of the matrimonial home in the night at 10 P.M. She kept sitting outside the house throughout night and in the morning went to her mother's place.
It was further submitted by the appellant that when she demanded her dowry articles, her husband and family members refused to return the same, on which she got registered First Information Report No.241 dated 11.04.2009 under Sections 294, 406, 498-A, 506 and 323 of JITENDER 2015.01.14 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-324 of 2014 -:4 :- the Indian Penal Code. Denying all allegations of her husband Arvind and raising legal objections regarding maintainability of the petition and estoppel etc., she sought dismissal of the petition.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled:-
(1) Whether respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioner has got no locus standi to file and maintain the present petition? OPR.
(3) Whether the petition is not legally maintainable in the present form? OPR.
(4) Whether petitioner is estoppel by his own act and conduct from filing the present petition? OPR. (5) Whether petitioner has not come in the Court with clean hands? OPR.
(6) Whether the petitioner has no cause of action against the respondent? OPR.
(7) Relief.
5. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions.
6. Considering the evidence and the arguments addressed, learned trial Court, allowed the petition and accordingly, a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant with Arvind-respondent, was passed.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2014, the appellant preferred the instant appeal.
8. We have heard the submissions made by Mr. Surender JITENDER 2015.01.14 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-324 of 2014 -:5 :- Deswal, learned counsel for the appellant.
9. Before embarking upon the contentious issue, it would be relevant to refer the admitted facts. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with respondent Arvind on 04.12.2008 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Karnal. They lived together as husband and wife but no issue was born out of the wedlock. A criminal case bearing First Information Report No.241 dated 11.04.2009 under Sections 294, 406, 498-A, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was got registered by the appellant against her husband Arvind and other family members on the allegation that they were unsatisfied with the dowry given by her mother at the time of marriage and just after two days of marriage had started raising demands for more dowry in the shape of cash amount and car and had been ill treating and physically assaulting her as she was unable to fulfil their demand. Arvind and his family members were challaned, charge sheeted and subjected to trial but ultimately they were acquitted of all the charges vide judgment Ex.PB.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that acquittal of respondent Arvind and his family members in the criminal case of demand of dowry registered at the instance of appellant, was no ground for allowing the petition for divorce filed by him. No evidence substantive or reliable could be produced by respondent Arvind to corroborate his allegation that the appellant had ever refused to perform her marital obligations or had declined to do the household work etc. within a span of 10/12 days of marriage during which she lived at her matrimonial home as JITENDER 2015.01.14 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-324 of 2014 -:6 :- stated by him. The only witness examined to support his version was PW2 Ram Kumar, an uncle of the appellant. The said witness deposed against the appellant because he had some scores to settle relating to property with the mother of the appellant. As such, he was not a reliable witness and on such vague and general allegations the respondent could not be allowed a decree of divorce.
11. According to respondent Arvind, the appellant stayed with him at the matrimonial place for only 10/12 days after marriage. The appellant also deposed that she left the matrimonial home on 15.02.2009 when she was forcibly turned out and despite request was not allowed to enter the house. Therefore, as per her version, she stayed in her matrimonial home for less than 2½ months. Respondent-Arvind, besides himself reiterating on oath the allegations of cruelty levelled by him against the appellant, examined his father Raghbir Singh (PW3) and Ram Kumar (PW2) an uncle of the appellant, who both corroborated his version.
PW2 Ram Kumar, uncle of the appellant testified that there was no demand of dowry by respondent Arvind and his family members before or after marriage and it was due to misbehaviour of Sushma Taya (appellant) that just after 4/5 days of marriage, a dispute arose between the parties. Having received a telephone call from respondent Arvind when he visited the matrimonial home of the appellant, she herself told him that she did not like Arvind and was not prepared to stay with him. After another 15/20 days, when she left her matrimonial home without informing anyone, he contacted her and she told him that she wanted to JITENDER 2015.01.14 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-324 of 2014 -:7 :- marry some other person and was not prepared to go back to her matrimonial home at Sultanpur.
12. In addition to the above ocular evidence of respondent Arvind, in para No.12 of the judgment of learned trial Court, it also finds mention that there was a report dated 29.03.2009 Ex.PA of the Women Cell wherein also it was stated that nothing regarding demand of dowry had come out of the matter in question. The dispute was that the appellant did not want to go back to her husband and was found to be making calls on mobile repeatedly. Thus, the report prepared by the Women Cell also supported the case of respondent Arvind.
13. Admittedly, levelling similar allegations as recorded in her written reply, the appellant had got registered First Information Report No.241 dated 11.04.2009 under Sections 294, 406, 498-A, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent Arvind and his family members, but they all stand acquitted in the said case vide judgment Ex.PB. Reproducing the operating portion of the judgment Ex.PB, learned trial Court recorded the following finding against the appellant:-
"After giving the above referred findings, the petitioner was acquitted in the said case. In addition to this respondent while appearing as RW1 admitted in her cross- examination that she did not do any household work during the time she stayed at her matrimonial house. Further she admitted that she did not share bed with her husband during the above referred period. From the findings returned in Judgment Ex.PB, the report of Women Cell Ex.PA and the admission of the respondent referred above, it is clear that it is the respondent who treated the petitioner with cruelty."
14. Needless to say that there appears no illegality or perversity in the judgment of learned trial Court. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex JITENDER 2015.01.14 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.M-324 of 2014 -:8 :- Court in a recent judgment in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, 2013(5) SCC 226 that it is now beyond cavil that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it would invariably and indubitably constitute matrimonial cruelty, such as would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce.
15. Not only from the judgment Ex.PB but also from the report of the Women Cell Ex.PA and testimony of PW2 Ram Kumar, it is established that the allegations of the appellant against her husband respondent-Arvind and his family members that they demanded dowry from her or ill treated her, were false. Certainly, levelling wild allegations and thrusting the agony of undergoing proceedings/trial in a criminal case on the husband and his family, which ultimately proved to be false, amounted to utmost cruelty towards the husband.
As a consequence to the above discussion, there being no ground for intervention in the findings of the learned trial Court, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
(SNEH PRASHAR) JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 01, 2014.
jitender Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No. JITENDER 2015.01.14 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document