Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Pal Singh vs Manpreet Kaur on 27 November, 2014
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal
FAO-M-180 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-M-180 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 27.11.2014
Inder Pal Singh
....Appellant.
Versus
Manpreet Kaur
...Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SNEH PRASHAR.
PRESENT: Mr. Abhijeet P.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate for the respondent.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. Demand draft bearing No. 833557 dated 15.11.2014 in the sum of ` 15,000/- in favour of the respondent towards litigation expenses has been handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (In short "the Act") for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, was allowed.
3. A few facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, inter alia, pleading that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 1.12.2002 at village GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.01.14 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO-M-180 of 2014 (O&M) -2- Kumbharwal, Tehsil Dhuri by way of Anand Karaj ceremony. After the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife but no issue was born. The respondent had been brought up by her mother. The respondent being the only daughter, her mother had spent ` 10 lacs on her marriage. After the marriage, the respondent found that the appellant was a habitual drunkard and addicted to intoxicants. She was given merciless beatings by the appellant and was pressurized to bring money from her mother who was a Government employee. The appellant was running a shop of denting and painting which he closed after one year of the marriage. The respondent tolerated the atrocities of the respondent with the hope that better sense would prevail upon him but to no effect. On 13.7.2010, the appellant after beating the respondent turned her out of the matrimonial home. Many Panchayats were convened to rehabilitate the respondent but the appellant misbehaved with the respondent and her mother. On 25.3.2012, when the appellant assaulted the respondent at her parental house, the FIR was got registered against him at Police Station City, Sangrur. When there was no possibility of reconciliation, the respondent prayed for a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by filing the said petition. The divorce petition was contested by the appellant by filing a written statement. It was pleaded therein that the respondent failed to fulfil her duties towards the appellant and she used filthy language towards him and his family members. It was further pleaded that the respondent left the matrimonial home many times without any information and on 13.7.2010, she herself had left the matrimonial home along with gold ornaments, valuable clothes and cash amounting to ` 50,000/-. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.01.14 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO-M-180 of 2014 (O&M) -3- prayer for dismissal of the same was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP
2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without reasonable cause/excuse continuously since 13.07.2010? OPP
3. Relief.
4. In support of her divorce petition, the respondent examined herself as PW1 and placed on file her affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating the version of the petition. She also proved various documents, i.e. copies of FIRs registered against the appellant, copies of compromise dated 28.2.2011, Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. She also examined Chamkaur Singh as PW2 and her mother Hardial Kaur as PW3 who supported the version of the respondent by filing affidavits Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/A, respectively.
The appellant in support of his case, examined the neighbour Ms. Jitin Kaushik as RW1 who filed her affidavit Ex.RW1/A and supported his version by stating that Manpreet Kaur (respondent herein) never talked to her about the maltreatment by the appellant. The appellant besides examining himself as RW4, also examined his uncle Kulwant Singh as RW2 and his mother as RW3. All the witnesses corroborated the version of the appellant by filing their respective affidavits.
5. The trial court took issues No.1 and 2 together and on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, decided the same in favour of the respondent holding that she was treated with cruelty by the appellant. Further, it was held that the respondent was also deserted without any sufficient cause for continuous period of more than two GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.01.14 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO-M-180 of 2014 (O&M) -4- years immediately proceeding the filing of the petition. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 24.2.2014 allowed the divorce petition. Hence, the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the behaviour of the respondent towards the appellant and his family members was very rude. He further submitted that the respondent left the matrimonial house on her own and without any reasonable cause and started residing with her mother. According to the learned counsel, sufficient evidence was produced on the record to falsify the allegations of the respondent but the learned trial court by misreading the evidence, allowed the divorce petition.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, besides supporting the judgment passed by the trial court submitted that the trial court on appreciation of the evidence had rightly passed a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the appeal.
6. The trial court on appreciation of evidence on record had concluded that the respondent had proved on record various FIRs registered against the appellant, calendra under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C and also compromise, Ex.P11, between the parties. She also produced MLR dated 25.3.2012, Ex.P12, in respect of the injuries suffered by her from the appellant. Further, the agreement was entered into by the parties only to save the marriage but the appellant did not mend his behaviour. No evidence was produced to show that after the agreement Ex.P11, the respondent was taken to her matrimonial home. It was further held by the trial court that the respondent had proved that GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.01.14 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO-M-180 of 2014 (O&M) -5- she was treated with cruelty by the appellant and was also deserted without any sufficient cause for continuous period of more than two years. The relevant findings recorded by the trial court read thus:-
"12. The petitioner besides herself has examined Chamkaur Singh of village Kumbharwal, who is an independent witness and also examined her mother Hardial Kaur. The respondent on the other hand examined one neighbour Jitin Kaushik, who stated that she had not heard anything about the dispute between the petitioner and respondent, though petitioner used to visit her. However, matrimonial disputes are mostly kept as close secret and evidence of this witness is only hear say evidence. The respondent has also examined his uncle Kulwant Singh, who has stated that he is not a summoned witness and is resident of village Ubhawal. He could not tell as to who incurred the expenses for the education of petitioner after her marriage. The respondent has also examined his mother Surjit Kaur and himself, who has simply stated that they did not harass the petitioner nor demanded dowry as alleged. The respondent in his cross-examination admitted three FIRs, one under Section 25 of Arms Act, one under Section 379 of IPC and another FIR under Section 452,323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC against him. The last of these FIRs was lodged by the petitioner. He also admitted about the DDR dated 24.07.2012 GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.01.14 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO-M-180 of 2014 (O&M) -6- and initiation of proceedings against him under Section 107,151 of Cr.P.C. He alleged that DDR lodged against him was false, but he did not move higher authorities in this regard. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to cross examination of petitioner where she stated that she did not complain to Sarpanch or Panch regarding respondent being drunkard. She could not tell the date, time and month when she brought money from her mother. She was not admitted in hospital on 13.07.2010. Chamkaur Singh PW2 has stated that he had accompanied the Panchayat. From the cross-examination of witnesses of petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent has failed to show if their evidence can not be believed. The petitioner has proved on record various FIRs registered against the respondent, Calandra under Section 107/151 of Cr.P.C and also a compromise between Balbir Singh father of petitioner and respondent Ex.P11 regarding incident which took place on 04.05.2009 and FIR was registered against respondent. This agreement was reached on 28.02.2011. Copy of MLR Ex.P12 dated 25.03.2012 has also been proved on record regarding injury to petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner argued that this agreement Ex.P11 was entered by the father of the petitioner to save the marriage but respondent did not mend his ways. There is no evidence if the GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.01.14 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO-M-180 of 2014 (O&M) -7- petitioner was taken to the matrimonial home after the agreement Ex.P11."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to demonstrate that there was any error or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
November 27, 2014 (SNEH PRASHAR)
gbs JUDGE
GURBACHAN SINGH
2015.01.14 11:28
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh