Punjab-Haryana High Court
Birender Singh vs Rekha Devi on 13 February, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIR 2013 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 87, (2013) 3 DMC 627
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
FAO No. 4923 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 4923 of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision: 13.2.2013
Birender Singh
..... Appellant
Versus
Rekha Devi
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
PRESENT: Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the respondent.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.5.2011, passed by the Family Court, Hisar, whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short 'the Act') preferred by the appellant-husband has been dismissed.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 1.5.2004 and no issue was born out of the wedlock. The matrimonial ties between the parties were apparently ruined soon after the marriage and the allegations and counter-allegations led the appellant-husband to initiate divorce proceedings, the respondent-wife also got registered a FAO No. 4923 of 2011 -2- criminal case under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal code, which is pending trial.
3. The appellant in his petition under Section 13 of the Act sought a decree of divorce on the ground 'of cruelty'. In order to make out the case that the acts of the respondent-wife were liable to be termed as cruelty, that their married life had become miserable. The specific instances relied upon by the appellant-husband are (i) the respondent- wife is not cordial and is non-cooperative; (ii) she openly stated that her marriage was solemnized against her wishes; (iii) she always disobeyed the appellant and his parents; (iv) she wanted to live separately in an urban area and pressurized the appellant to live at Rewari or Hisar;
(v) the respondent-wife refused to prepare tea or breakfast on 20.8.2004, when brother-in-law of the appellant visited village Bhakli; (vi) the respondent-wife never did any household or domestic work during her short stay in the matrimonial home; (vii) she used to pick up quarrels on petty domestic matters; (viii) the respondent-wife picked up a quarrel with the mother of the appellant on 12.10.2004 and slapped the appellant's mother and (ix) the respondent-wife is said to have left the matrimonial home without the consent of the appellant on 20.12.2004 with her brother who had come to take her. The allied efforts made by the appellant to bring the respondent back through some Panchayat also proved to be futile.
4. The respondent-wife contested the appellant's claim inter alia alleging that she was maltreated for bringing insufficient dowry and was forcibly thrown out of the matrimonial home.
FAO No. 4923 of 2011 -3-
5. On the basis of the pleadings, the parties went to trial on the following issues:-
"1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground mentioned in the petition as alleged?OPP
2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
3. Relief."
6. The appellant besides examining himself as a witness, produced his father Nathu Ram as PW-3 and one Dharampal as PW-2. The respondent-wife also appeared as RW-1 and her father Randhir Singh (RW-2), who tendered his affidavit as Ex. RW-2/A. She also produced the certified copy of the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the appellant-husband which was later on withdrawn by him.
7. The Family Court on consideration of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the instances highlighted by the appellant- husband even if assumed to be correct are merely the result of wear and tear of the wedded life and cannot be treated as cruelty of such a degree that they could not live together or their marriage needs to be dissolved.
8. The aggrieved appellant has approached this Court.
9. With a view to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court where both the parties have appeared. It appears from the report as well as the stand taken by their learned counsel, while the appellant- husband is not willing to join the company of respondent-wife at any cost whereas the respondent-wife is still ready and willing to join the company FAO No. 4923 of 2011 -4- of the appellant-husband un-conditionally.
10. In these circumstances, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits and gone through the record.
11. In our considered view, there is no merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. We say so for the reason that some of the petty domestic instances led to the alleged incident dated 12.10.2004, when the respondent-wife is said to have lost her temper and slapped the appellant's mother. This incident could be testified by the appellant's mother but for the best reasons known to her she did not come forward as a witness. The other instances regarding disobedience of the advice of the appellant or his family members etc. are not of such a grave nature to constitute 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act. It may be noticed here that the respondent-wife as well as her father in their cross-examination have denied the allegations that the respondent wanted to live separately or she ever insisted the appellant to live at Rewari or Hisar. Both of them have been cross-examined at length but nothing has come out to disbelieve their testimonies. Rather their statements inspire confidence. It appears to us that the appellant is adamant not to keep the respondent-wife in his company and has made vague and evasive allegations for that purpose. We are also of the view that mere registration of a case by the respondent-wife under Section 498-A IPC, per se, does not amount to cruelty to entitle the appellant to seek decree of divorce on that count. The allegations levelled by the respondent-wife have been investigated by the investigating agency and the appellant has been charge-sheeted and put to trial. The competent Court is yet to FAO No. 4923 of 2011 -5- pronounce on the allegations, hence, it is not expedient to express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Hence, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed.
( SURYA KANT )
JUDGE
February 13, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu JUDGE