Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar vs Maya Devi on 23 December, 2016
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO No.: 286 of 2008
Judgment reserved on : 13.12.2016
.
Date of Decision : 23 /12/2016
Anil Kumar .....Appellant.
Versus
Maya Devi
...Respondent.
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
rt
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate.
__________________________________________
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge:
The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned rendition recorded on 7th May, 2008 by the learned Presiding Officer/A.D.J., Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in H.M.P. No. 27 of 2006/RBT No. 44/06, whereby he declined to the petitioner an apposite relief ventilated in the petition aforestated constituted by him therebefore.
2. The facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the month of December, 1996 at Tika Hayod, P.O. Awahdevi, Tehsil Bhoranj, District ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:59 :::HCHP 2 Hamirpur, H.P. in accordance with Hindu rites. Out of the wedlock of the parties, one son namely Abahy aged 8 years was born, who is presently residing .
with the respondent. It is averred that the respondent remained with the petitioner after marriage for about six months and even during this period she used to leave the house of the petitioner of every now and then at her own will. However, in the month of July, 1997, the respondent quarreled with rt the petitioner and the members of his family alleging that the petitioner had illicit relations with his sister-
in-law and thereafter left the house of the petitioner and did not return. Such allegations made by the respondent are averred to be false and baseless. It is further alleged that the respondent compelled the petitioner to stay in the house of her parents at Tika Hayod, but the respondent did not want to live in the house of the petitioner. The respondent also constructed a house at Tika Awahdevi, Tappa Mewa, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. It is further averred that the petitioner tried his best to visit the house of the parents of the respondent and to bring her back and after this, several attempts were made ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:59 :::HCHP 3 by the petitioner alongwith his relatives and other respectable persons to bring the respondent back to his house, but the respondent refused to join the .
company of the petitioner. It is further averred that from July, 1997 till the filing of the present petition, there was no relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and the respondent and it has of now become impossible to live together. It is further alleged that in the month of January, 2006, the rt respondent alongwith President All India Mahila Samiti, Smt. Satya Galoda, Brahmi Devi, Nazir Bibi and others threatened the petitioner and the members of his family with dire consequences and pressurized him to sign on a compromise deed forcibly, though no such compromise was effected between the parties. Hence, it is alleged that the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner for the last eight and half years without any rhyme or reason. Hence, this petition.
3. Vide her detailed reply, the respondent has contested the petition of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to a decree of divorce since he has himself kept a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:59 :::HCHP 4 concubine namely Leena alias Meera, daughter of Shri Durga Dass, who is also serving in Mission Public School, Anni, District Kullu. The petitioner has .
also an illegitimate son from the aforesaid concubine.
It is denied that the respondent has left the house of the petitioner after picking up a quarrel. It is submitted that the respondent has been visiting the of house of her in-laws at village Kakkar and at the residence of rt her mother-in-law at village Kotli (Mandi) and also at the place of the posting of the petitioner at G.H.S. Ganvi, District Shimla. It is further submitted that the respondent never levelled allegations of illicit relations of the petitioner with his sister-in-law and no quarrel ever took place between the petitioner and the respondent. Hence, it is submitted that the aforesaid allegations have been manipulated by the petitioner in order to torture and harass the respondent at the instance of his mother and father. It is further submitted that the respondent also attended the marriage of the relative of the petitioner at Devgarh (Mandi) and thereafter at village Kakkar. The respondent also stayed at Shimla with her mother-in-law where she ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:59 :::HCHP 5 was serving in the Medical Department. When her mother-in-law was transferred to Kotli (Mandi), the respondent also stayed with her. It is also denied .
that the respondent does not want to live with the petitioner, though the respondent has always been ready to stay with the petitioner anywhere at the place of his posting or in his residence. It is further of submitted that the petitioner compelled the respondent to arrange for a piece of land, where a rt separate house could be constructed and with the pressure of the petitioner, the respondent procured a piece of land where the house was constructed at village Saroun near Awahdevi. It is further submitted that an amicable compromise was arrived at between the parties with the help of Janbandi Mahila Samiti on 9.1.2006 and on 12.1.2006, the petitioner again violated the terms and conditions of the compromise and filed the present petition for dissolution of marriage just to harass the respondent physically, mentally and economically and also to legalise his illicit relations with the aforesaid concubine. It is alleged that the petitioner threatened her not to live with him in his house at ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:59 :::HCHP 6 Kakkar. It is further submitted that when the child was born to the respondent at Kamla Nehru Hospital at Shimla, the petitioner and the members of his .
family never turned up to look-after her despite the knowledge of the same. The respondent also remained unconscious for about 14 hours after the delivery, but the petitioner did not care to take care of of her. Under the circumstances, the respondent was looked after and taken care of by her parents. The rt petitioner visited the house of the parents of the respondent only after one year of the birth of the child alongwith his relatives and even then the petitioner was not serious to take the respondent and her son to his house. It is further alleged that the respondent also visited village Kotli alongwith her son, but the mother of the petitioner did not allow her to enter the house. It is further submitted that the respondent performed her matrimonial obligations like a Hindu wife and never refused to join the company of the petitioner, rather it is the petitioner who is not willing to keep the respondent with him. It is further submitted that at the time of filing the petition, the petitioner and the respondent ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:59 :::HCHP 7 were living together at village Kakkar from 12.1.2006 to 12.2.2006 as per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid compromise. The other .
allegations have also been denied.
4. In his rejoinder the petitioner, while denying the allegations in the reply, reasserted the averments made in the petition.
of
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter se rt the parties at contest:-
1. Whether the respondent has maltreated the petitioner and as such guilty of cruelty ? OPP
2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without reasonable cause ? OPP
3. Relief.
7. In discharge of the onus cast upon the afore-extracted issues the petitioner had adduced evidence comprised in his testification, besides in the testifications of other PWs. The respondent in support of her contention(s) reared in her reply to the Hindu Marriage Petition, constituted by the petitioner before the learned Court below, besides testifying in corroboration thereto also concerted to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:59 :::HCHP 8 sustain her testimony by leading into the witness box as PW-I.
8. The formidability of the findings returned .
by the learned Court below on the apposite issue(s) stands borne out from the evidence which exists on record. The learned trial Court on an indepth analysis of the evidence which existed therebefore, has aptly of concluded qua graphic emanations spurring therefrom for enlivening the rebuttal furnished by rt the respondent to the averments cast by the petitioner in his apposite petition whereupon he sought severance of his marital ties with the respondent, emanations whereof display of the respondent joining the company of the respondent at his house at village Kakar besides divulge qua hers also joining his company at various places of his posting. Furthermore, emanations occur in the testification of the respondent besides in the testification of her witness wherefrom a vivid display stands unfolded qua the respondent visiting her mother-in-law at Shimla thereafter at Kotli whereafter she visited her mother-in-law at Kakar.
Also with personifications occurring in the relevant ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:59 :::HCHP 9 evidence on record qua the respondent attending upon the mother of the petitioner for 40 days when she suffered fracture of her hand is a vivid display of .
the respondent throughout the span of her married life with the petitioner she being attentive to her marital duties towards the petitioner also hers discharging her obligation(s) towards her mother-in-
of law. Contrarily, the evidence on record bespeaks qua when the respondent was in the family way, the rt petitioner abandoning her in the house of her parents also when at the time the respondent delivered a child at a hospital in Shimla, neither the petitioner nor any of his family members visiting to inquire about her health at the hospital whereat she stood admitted wherefrom it is apt to conclude of the petitioner perpetrating cruelty upon the respondent.
9. The aforesaid discussion when brings to the fore of the appellant contriving allegations of the respondent perpetrating cruelty upon him besides hers willfully deserting his company, the reason for his contriving the aforesaid allegations against the respondent palpably stand generated from an imminent evidentiary display of his ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:59 :::HCHP 10 maintaining in his house one Leela @ Meera Devi, for continuance of relations with whom the respondent stood perceived by him to a deterrent whereupon .
obviously a deduction is derivable of his showing reluctance in maintaining the respondent as his wife also his showing reluctance in permitting her to join his company at his house.
of
10. Be that as it may, with a proven compromise rt embodied in Ex. RW-4/A standing recorded inter se the parties at contest holding unfoldments therein qua both agreeing to live together as husband and wife also theirs showing willingness to forget the past, generates an inference especially when it stood recorded at the instance of the respondent qua the latter thereupon holding the apposite volition besides willingness to maintain matrimonial amity with the petitioner. The effect of the aforesaid inference when construed in tandem with the evident factum of both living together from 12.1.2006 upto 12.2.2006 is of a concomitant deduction standing derived therefrom qua even at the time of institution of the Hindu Marriage Petition on 10.2.2006 by the petitioner before the learned ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:59 :::HCHP 11 Court below both respectively residing together as husband and wife, corollary whereof is qua it lending succor to an apt conclusion as stands also .
recorded by the learned Court below qua the allegations constituted by the petitioner against the respondent in the apposite Hindu Marriage Petition also the apposite evidence led by him on the of apposite issues being bereft of credence. Contrarily, the learned Court below has aptly concluded of the rt evidence adduced by the respondent for sustaining her reply to the Hindu Marriage Petition being amenable for credence being placed thereupon besides its holding probative strength.
11. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. All pending petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.
23rd December, 2016. (Sureshwar Thakur) (K/priti) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:59 :::HCHP