Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpal Kaur vs Balbir Singh on 23 April, 2001
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. Smt. Harpal Kaur was the respondent in the trial Court in the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and she has filed the present appeal which has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.8.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who allowed the petition under Section 13 of the said Act filed by Balbir Singh, husband of the appellant, now respondent in this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Balbir Singh, now respondent and petitioner in the trial Court, filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife Harpa! Kaurby inter alia pleading that he was married with Harpal Kaur on 17.11.1987 according to Sikh rites by way of Anand Karj ceremony. After the marriage, the patties resided and cohabited together as husband and wife at .village Bhadewal, tehsil and district Ludhiana and oni of this wedlock three sons namely Sukhbir Singh, Kulbir Singh and Daljhit Singh were born on 21.8.1988, 8.9.1990 and 17.1.1992. It has been alleged by the husband that the relations between the parties became strained in the year 1990 after the birth of second child. The wife was pressing the husband to settle at Delhi with her parents and give up the company of his parents. The parents of the wife were telling that there were disturbed conditions in Punjab, therefore, it is safer to shift to Delhi. The petitioner-husband has two brothers out of which one is elder to him and married and is residing sepa-
rately and the other is minor. The mother of the petitioner is 60 years old and his father has already expired. Therefore, it was difficult for the petitioner to shift to Delhi. When he refused to accept the demand of the respondent-wife, she decided to desert him after the birth of third child in the year 1992. The petitioner and his relations made efforts to rehabilitate the respondent. She was brought back to her matrimonial home in the month of March, 1992. Again the respondent-wife started misbehaving and also started maltreatment with the petitioner and his family members. She stopped preparing meals and washing clothes of the petitioner and his family members and started threatening to teach a lesson to them. She even threatened to commit suicide. The message was given to the parents of the respondent about her maltreatment and then she was taken back to Delhi by her mother in June, 1992. In the mother of April, 1995, the respondent-wife and her parents took the local police into confidence and called the petitioner in Police Station, Payal. where he was abused and slapped by the police in the presence of the respondent and her mother and he was directed to live with the petitioner where she likes and consequently the petitioner and respondent lived together up to June, 1995 when she was taken back by her mother and mother's sister Gurjit Kaur to Delhi. On 23.8.1995 in Police Station, Payal it waff settled that the petitioner will bring back the respondent in the month of February, 1996 to any other place than village Bhadewai as the respondent-wife was not ready to reside in the village. The parties were given six months time to remove the misunderstandings and to develop good relations and to arrange residence. But in the meanwhile, on 19.11.1995 the petitioner-husband was rounded by Amarjit Singh, DSP, Payal at the instance of respondent and the petitioner was directed to come to Police Station, Payal along with the three children. The petitioner was surprised to see the respondent, her mother and mother's sister Gurjit Kaur, Mohinder Singh, husband of Sukhwant Kaur, another sister of the mother of respondent, in Police Station, Payal. DSP Amarjit Singh gave beatings to the petitioner in the presence of respondent and other relatives and he was also threatened that if he tried to shirk from signing, he will remain in lock-up and thus his signatures were obtained on the compromise dated 19.11.1995 with the force of the police. Seeing the attitude of the respondent on 19.11.1995, the petitioner instituted a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 29.11.1995 which was entrusted to the Court of Shri J.S. Korey, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana as the petitioner was apprehensive that the respondent will again cause beating and maltreatment with him at the hands of the police. During the pendency of the said petition the respondent instituted a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Delhi, which is still pending and she also filed complaints against him before the Crime Cell (Women) South Motibag, Nanakpura, New Delhi in which he was summoned in the month of January, 1996. Again in the month of April, 1996, the petitioner and his brother were sum-
moned by the Superintendent of Police (HQ), Khanna in a complaint filed by the respondent. The respondent had been filing false complaints one after the other against the petitioner and his family members levelling false allegations upon which he was harassed and tortured by the police. She also lodged a complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC against him, his brothers and their wives and other family members upon which FIR No. 115 of 1996 was registered at Police Station Inderpuri, Delhi. The petitioner was arrested by the police and he remained under the police remand as well as in judicial custody. The respondent has treated him and his family members with cruelty and has tortured them physically and mentally and has created such atmosphere in which it is quite impossible for the petitioner to live with the respondent. Therefore, on these allegations the petitioner-husband made a prayer for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent-wife, who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. She took preliminary objections such as that the petition was not legally maintainable, that the petitioner has not approached the court- with clean hands and has given a tainted version of the matter; that the respondent was always ready and willing to join the society of the petitioner along with the children but the petitioner was evading his liability towards the respondent and the children. The respondent also pleaded that she had been tolerating the maltreatment at the hands of the petitioner with the hope that he will mend his ways. She was forced to leave the house in compelling circumstances in June, 1993 when she was on family way and sons namely Kulbir Singh and Daljit Singh were also sent with her and the eldest son namely Sukhbir Singh is not being properly looked after by the petitioner. She was not allowed to see Sukhbir Singh much against the wishes of her son and the conduct of the petitioner is such which disentitles him to seek the decree of divorce. It was further pleaded by the respondent that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the said petition was not even verified properly. On merits, it was submitted by the respondent that she never pressed the petitioner to settle at Delhi with her parents. It was denied by the respondent that after the birth of third child in the year 1992, she did not return to the matrimonial house. She has always been ready and willing to join the company ofthe petitioner despite maltreatment at his hands and tolerated with the hope that better sense will prevail upon the petitioner. It was denied that the petitioner and his relatives made any effort to reconcile their differences. It was also pleaded that the petitioner admitted his guilt and assured that he will treat the petitioner with respect, love and affection. She never threatened the petitioner or his family members and she never tried to commit suicide. She also denied the allegations that her parents took the assistance of local police or that the petitioner was called in the police station or that the petitioner was abused or slapped in her presence and her family members with the intervention of the respectables the petitioner agreed to keep the respondent and during the period they lived together, the behaviour of the petitioner continued to be quite rigid and harsh and he continued maltreating the respondent. It was also denied by the respondent that settlement was effected under the pressure of police, rather it was the petitioner who had influenced the police of Police Station, Payal and got the matter compromised. They caused the injuries to the respondent and she was medically examined in Civil Hospital, Khanna and medical report was prepared by attending doctor and it was on the intervention of the petitioner that respondent and her relations were forced to effect a compromise. It was denied that on 19.11.1995, the petitioner was rounded up by Amarjit Singh, DSP at the instance of the respondent, or that the said DSP gave beatings to the petitioner, or that the petitioner signed some compromise under pressure. The petitioner himself compromised the matter of his own free will. It was denied that the DSP took into custody the younger sons from the petitioner and handed over their custody to the respondent. The petition under Section !0 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the petitioner but the same was dismissed as withdrawn and the present petition under Section 13 of the said Act was filed. The respondent admitted that she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a complaint under Sections 406/498-AIPC at Delhi- By denying other allegations, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
4. The husband filed a re-joinder against the written statement in which he reiterated his allegations made in the petition by denying those of the written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-
" 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty ?OPA
2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years preceding the presentation of the petition ? OPA
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree prayed for ? OPA
4. Relief."
5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and I shall make a brief mention of the material evidence in the subsequent portion of this judgment. At this juncture 1 may say that one more female child was born to respondent Harpal Kaur on 20.2.1996.
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined PW1 HC Manjit Singh, PW2 HC Beant Singh, PW3 Sadhu Singh, PW4 Darshan Singh and he himself came in the witness-box as PW5. On the other hand, the respondent appeared as her own witness as RW1 and she examined RW1 Nahar Singh, RW3 Dr. Lachhman Singh, RW4 Sukhminder Kaur, RW5 Man-mohan Singh and RW6 Gurjit Kaur. Some documents were also placed on record.
7. On the conclusion of proceedings, the learned trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioner by holding that the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty; her defence is not proved and that the conduct of the respondent is such which had broken done the matrimonial relations between the parties. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the respondent by holding that at the time of filing of the petitioner on 9.12.1996 desertion for a continuous period of more than two years immediately before the presentation of the present petition has not been established. Issues No. 3 and 4 were decided in favour the petitioner-husband. Resultantly, vide judgment and decree dated 2.5.2000 the petition was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved forthwith with costs.
8. Not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the present appeal by the wife.
9. I have heard Mr. Karamjit Veram. Advocate on behalf of the appellant, Mr Y.P. Khullar, Advocate on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
10. Before I deal with the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate for me to reproduce paras 22 to 25 of the impugned judgment in order to appreciate the reasons advanced by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which read as under :-
22. "From this evidence it emerges that the petitioner was maltreating the respondent on account of demand of more dowry articles. Demand of dowry articles is certainly a cruelty, but when the relations between the parties become strained then there is tendency between the parties to level even false allegations. In the written statement, the respondent has denied the allegations of the petitioner and has stated that rather she was maltreated and efforts were made to eliminate her and there is no allegation in the written statement that the petitioner ever demanded T.V., Scooter, fridge etc. as is now alleged by the respondent and her witnesses. Therefore, firstly this evidence is beyond pleadings and cannot be considered. Further if there was any such demand and maltreatment of the respondent then there was compromise between the parties on 23.8.1995 and 19.11.1995. but there is not even a word in those compromises that the dispute between the parties was on account of demand of dowry articles by the petitioner from the respondent, rather the crux of the problem was that the respondent will not reside at village Bhadewal. So far as the demand of plot is concerned as is clear from the compromise Ex.P19 dated 19.11.1995, the parents of the respondent had agreed to arrange a plot at Khanna so that their daughter may settle at Khanna separately from the family of the petitioner for which the petitioner had agreed. Therefore, the demand of plot was not that of the petitioner, but it was the parents of the respondent who were interested to settle their daughter at Khanna, so they agreed to arrange a plot at Khanna. Therefore, the demand of dowry articles seems to he exaggerated version of the respondent. Therefore, this cannot be treated as cruelty to the respondent.
23. Another allegation of the respondent is that an effort was made to eliminate her and she in her statement has stated that on 15.8.1995, an effort was made to put a kerosene oil on her. but she hardly saved and even the pelitioner and his brother caught her from the arms and rubbed her throat and she was unable !o speak for three days and she was taken to Civil Hospital and she slaved in the Hospital for two days and then her mother had come and then she was referred to Ludhiana and she remained admitted in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana for a week. The medical evidence is of RW 3 Dr. Lachhman Singh who medico-legally examined the respondent on 17.8.1995 and has stated about the above said two injuries and during cross-examination he has admitted that the respondent was pregnant at that lime and the injuries are possible due to internal biological disturbance. Therefore, pain on chest wall, neck and abdomen does not prove the allegations of the respondent that an effort was made to eliminate her.
24. It has next been argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that if there was any lapse on the part of the respondent, then that was condoned after compromise between the parties. Although there was compromise between the parties on 23.8.1995 and in that compromise it was agreed that the petitioner will arrange the house within six months and they will reside in another place than village Bhadewat. but the respondent did not wait for the above said period and approached the police of Police Station, Payal and the petitioner was summoned and beaten by the police and thus gave more insecurity to the petitioner and then he moved a petition under Section [OoftheAct, but instead of reconciliation, the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC in which the petitioner was taken in custody and her other relations managed to secure anticipatory bail, but the respondent moved applications for cancellation of anticipatory bail and bail to the petitioner on false grounds and ultimately those applications were dismissed by the Court vide order Bx.P15 and then petitioner filed the present petition. Therefore, this conduct of the respondent does not show that with the compromise, the parties had condoned their previous conduct.
25 Therefore, if we analyse the entire evidence on the record, it is very much clear that from the beginning the respondent was not interested to reside at village Bhadewal because she had come from Delhi and was not liking the life style of the village. Therefore, she was compelling the petitioner to settle at Delhi or some other city, but the pelitioner had a minor young brother and a widowed mother and was unable to leave them which prompted the respondent to leave the matrimonial house and she remained away from the matrimonial house from June, 1992 to August, 1995. With the intervention of the relations, she came back to her matrimonial house, but again the problem between the parties was that the respondent was not liking to reside at village Bhadewal and she again left the matrimonial house in June, 1995 and after that she has not turned (returned ?) to the matrimonial house. In between there were two compromises in August, 1995 and November, 1995, but the respondent did not stick to the compromise dated 23.8,1995 in which it was agreed that no party will interfere for a period of six months and in the meantime, the respondent will arrange his work and residence at the place other than village Bhadewal, but in the meantime, the respondent approached the police. The petitioner was summoned by the police of Police Station. Payal and he was beaten and humiliated in the presence of the respondent and her relatives. Although there was a compromise dated 19.11.1995, but it has been alleged by the petitioner that compromise had been effected under pressure of the police and seeing the conduct of the respondent, he filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act, but instead of reconciling Ihe matter with the petitioner, the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC in which the petitioner was arrested and remained in custody for 10 days and his other relations secured anticipatory bail, but the respondent was not satisfied with the release of the petitioner and she moved applications for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner and his relations on the false grounds and those applications were dismissed by Delhi Court vide order Ex.P15. Then she made allegations against the petitioner in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner has illicit relations with some other woman without disclosing the name of that woman. Therefore, on the face of it, this allegation was false and no evidence has been led by the respondent to that effect in the present petition. Then all the dowry articles have been taken back by the respondent. If the intention of the respondent would have been for settlement with Ihe petitioner then there was no necessity to file the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC or to take all the dowry articles from the matrimonial house, but the allegations of the respondent that the petitioner maltreated her on account of demand of dowry articles and that effort was made to eliminate her is not proved on the basis of evidence on the record. Therefore, if we take cumulative effect of all the incidents, I am of the considered opinion that this is the conduct of the respondent which broke down the matrimonial relations between the parties. Therefore, I return the findings of this issue in favour of the petitioner, and against the respondent that the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty."
11. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that it is not proved on the record that the wife had treated the respondent- husband with cruelty, rather the husband had treated the appellant with cruelty, as a result of which she was fed up with the conduct of her husband. The husband had neglected the children, so much so, the appellant was turned out from the matrimonial house when she was pregnant and she had to deliver the fourth child on 20.2.1996 at Delhi in the house of her parents. She was turned out in the month of June, 1995. It was also argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that it is not a sin on the part of the wife when she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or when she filed a complaint under Sections 406/498-A 1PC. It is her statutory right to claim maintenance from her husband when she has been neglected and her husband and his other family members have misappropriated her dowry ankles. It is open to her to file a criminal complaint against the respondent and his relatives.
12. On the contrary, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the conduct of the wife is such that she brought disgrace to her husband who was beaten up by Amarjit Singh DSP in Police Station, Payal. The conduct of the husband shows that when he was beaten up by the said DSP and the police at instance of the appellant on 19.11.1995 in Police Station, Payal, he filed a complaint against the conduct of the DSP alleging that the said DSP had given him beatings in the presence ofhis relations and this has brought a disgrace to him. This is the worst type of cruelty on the part of the wife when she without any reason had got beaten her husband. There was a compromise between the parties on 23.8.1995 vide which it was settled that the husband will bring back the appellant in the month of February, 1996 to any other place other than village Bhadewal. The appellant did not wait. She took the assistance of the police in the month of November, 1995, as a result of which the petitioner was rounded up by the police at the instance of the appellant and was beaten mercilessly in the presence of the appellant and this is a biggest insult to the respondent-husband. So much so, under the coercion certain signatures of the husband were obtained on blank papers on 19.11.1995. Since the conduct of the wife was not good, therefore, there was no option with the husband except to file a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 29.11.1995. The filing of complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC by the wife itself suggests that she was out and out to humiliate the petitioner. The marriage in this case was performed as back as on 17.11.1987 and there was no occasion to file a criminal complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC after a lapse of 9 years. The husband never misappropriated the dowry articles and all the dowry articles were with the appellant. She was fully aware. Still she filed false complaint in the Police Station at Delhi, as a result of which FIR No. 115 of 1996 was registered in Police Station Inderpuri, Delhi. Consequently, the husband was arrested. He remained under the police remand as well as in judicial custody. In these circumstances, it can be safely said that the appellant had treated the respondent-husband and his family members with cruelty. The wife was always interested to live at Delhi with her parents. She wanted to prevail upon her husband to shift from Punjab to Delhi. The respondent-husband was not willing to do so on account of his family liabilities. All these acts constitute an act of cruelty and, therefore, the decree has been rightly granted by the trial Court in favour of the husband.
13. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and am of the view that this appeal is devoid of any merit. It stands proved on the record that wife Harpal Kaur had treated the husband with cruelty after the solemnisation of the marriage. It is the common case of the parties that the marriage took place on 17.11.987. Also it is the admitted case of the parties that out of this wedlock three sons namely Sukhbir Singh, Kulbir Singh and Daljit Singh were bom on 21.8.1988, 9.8.1990 and 17.1.1992 respectively. Also it is an admitted fact that Harpal Kaur gave birth to a female child on 20.2.1996. There is no dispute that the relations between the parties became strained at one point of time and a compromise took place on 23.8.1995 in Police Station, Payal vide which it was settled that the husband will bring back the wife in the month of February, 1996 to any other place than village Bhadewal as the respondent was not ready to reside in the village. Also from this compromise it stands proved that the parties were given six months time to remove the misunderstanding and to develop good relations and to arrange residence. It is the case of the respondent-husband that the appellant-wife had left his company in the month of June, 1995. Earlier to that if there was any guilt on the part of the respondent that stands condoned as the husband had been cohabitating with the appellant. By taking the birth of fourth child in the month of February, 1996, it also stands proved that if there was any guilt on the part of the wife qua husband prior to June, 1995, that also stands condoned because the parties had been cohabitating and when the wife last time came to the house of per parents she was on the family way.
14. Now it is to be seen whether after June, 1995 till the filing of the present petition the wife Harpal Kaur had treated the petitioner with such cruelty justifying passing of a decree on the part of the trial Court or not. As 1 have stated earlier that the relations between the parties were not cordial though the parties had been residing together intermittently. Even it is also true that they cohabited with each other upto May/June, 1995 but the sting of sourness always remained in the matrimonial home. This is the reason that on 23.8.1995 the matter went to the police and a compromise was effected on that day vide which it was agreed upon between the parties that they would try to remove their misunderstandings within a span of six months and by the end of January, 1996 husband would bring back the appellant-wife to her matrimonial home and they would start residing at any other place than village Bhadewal as the wife was not ready to live in the village. From this compromise we can get a catch that Harpal Kaur was interested not to live in the village. She wanted to lead a city life and perhaps this was the reason that she was insisting upon her husband to shift to Delhi. This demand of the appellant could not be met by the husband and their relations became strained. There is a truth in the allegation of the husband when he alleges that the appellant put pressure upon him to shift to Delhi from village Bhadewal.
15. Now let us see had happened after August, 1995. There is enough documentary evidence to show that on 19.11.1995 the husband was summoned in the police station by the police of Police Station Payal and DSP Amarjit Singh was responsible in rounding up the husband. It is also proved on the record that on that day the petitioner was given merciless beatings by DSP Amarjit Singh at the instance of the appellant. Let us first examine the documentary evidence in this regard. Balbir Singh respondent made a complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana praying that inquiry be conducted against the illegal acts of DSP Amarjit Singh. In para No. 3 of the complaint dated 26.11.1995 it has been alleged as follows :-
"That on 19.11.1995, I have to attend the condolence ceremony at village Bhadewal and this fact was very well known to Smt. Harpal Kaur and her parents i.e. mother, Smt. Sukhminder Kaur and her sister namely Smt. Gurjit Kaur and other relations etc, and with the object in view they had already approached along with the illaqa D.S.P. Amarjit Singh who directed one ASI Rattanjit Singh of P.P. Dhamot to bring S. Balbir Singh for settlement and they took me alongwith respectables in P.S. Payal for recording my statement but they did not allow the respectables who had accompanied me to enter in the Police Station and they took me along with the Police Station where instead beating me mercilessly by the said D.S.P. S. Amarjit Singh himself and two other police officials and as such this action of police is wrong, illegal and without any authority. They had taken me in the Police Station without any case, challan or warrant case against me. After beating me mercilessly, I was illegally locked in the Police Station. They had also obtained my signatures against my wishes on some documents after dictating by the said D.S.P. Amarjit Singh, P.S. Payal, District Ludhiana."
16. It was also submitted by Balbir Singh that his life and property is in danger at the hands of the above said D.S.P. S. Amarjit Singh and his wife and her parents and relatives whose previous history is that they are habitual in extorting money by arranging such marriage of their female children of marriageable age. A copy of the complaint was endorsed to Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana. D.G.P., Punjab, Chief Minister S. Harcharan Singh Brar and Shri Chhibbar, the men Governor of Punjab, it is proved on the record that these complaints were sent to different authorilies as there are postal receipts and acknowledgements in this regard.
17. The conduct of the husband stands fortified when one reads the contents of the petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was filed by him on 29.11.1995. On the contrary, the stand of the appellant is that on 19.11.1995 there was a compromise, which fact has been totally denied by the husband. Had there been any genuine compromise on 19.11.1995, there was hardly any necessity on the part of the husband to make a complaint on 20.11.1995 itself. To call the husband in the police station without any rhyme and reason when the panics were agreed to settle their differences up to February, 1996, is a worst type of cruelty committed on the part of the wife. Thingsdonot rest here. The wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. I do not dispute with the proposition of law that a wife has a legal right to file such petition as argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant, but to level allegations to the extent that her husband has illicit relations with some other woman also without disclosing the name of that lady and without ascertaining the factual position is an act of cruelty and this fact is borne out from para No. 14 of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. placed on record as Ex.P18. Not only this, on the complaint filed under Sections 406/498-A 1PC, FIR No. 115 of 1996 was registered at Delhi. The husband was taken into custody. This FIR was not only against the respondent-husband but was also against other family members of the husband. The husband was arrested by the Delhi Police. He remained in police custody. The delay in lodging this complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC shows that it is a counterblast to the petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and to the present petition under Section 13 of the said Act. It is not believable that the husband misappropriated the dowry articles of the wife in the year 1996 when the parties were married in the year 1987. If the husband wanted to misappropriate the dowry articles, he could have done it in the year 1987 or 1988, but to lodge a complaint in the year 1996 shows mala fide on the part of the wife. It stands established on the record through the statement of PW1 HC Manjit Singh that FIR No. 115 of 1996 was registered in Police Station Inderpuri, Delhi vide Ex.PA. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the statement of PW2 HC Beant Singh and submitted that on the basis of the complaint dated 20.11.1995 an inquiry was held and the complaint of Balbir Singh was found false as per the report dated 14.2.1996 of Superintendent of Police (HQ), Khanna, but I am not inclined to accept this contention mainly on the ground that had there been no instance there was hardly any necessity for the husband to file the complaint on the very next day of the incident i.e. on 20.11.1995. It is abundantly proved on the record through the statement ofPW3 Sadhu Singh that petitioner was picked up by the police on 19.11.1995. This witness has further testified that he along with 5/6 persons came to Police Station. Payal, where DSP Amarjit Singh was present. The DSP brought one paper and he asked to sign on it. It was further stated by Sadhu Singh PW3 that the Thanedar directed that all the children be handed over to the lady. Accordingly, both the issues were given to the appellant. Also it has been testified by Sadhu Singh that after this so-called compromise dated 19.11.1995 the wife did not live in the house of the respondent. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW3 Sadhu Singh. Balbir Singh respondent has categorically stated with regard to the incident dated 19.11.1995 that he was brought to the police station on the excuse that he was directed to come to the police station and D.S.P. S. Amarjit Singh had called me there. Harpal Kaur, Gurjit Kaur and Surinder Kaur were already there. D.S.P. S. Amarjit Singh was also present. He told the DSP that a compromise had already been executed between them vide which six months time has been given to him to arrange an alternative accommodation. It has also been testified by the husband that the police of Police Station Payal gave him merciless beatings and pushed him on the feet of Harpal Kaur. He was embarrassed and insulted in the presence of Harpal Kaur. He handed over the children to the appellant under the pressure of DSP. The police had threatened him to face the dire consequences in case he does not accept the demand of the appellant. He also testified that the appellant also filed a complaint under Sections 406/498-A [PC and a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, From the lengthy statement of Balbir Singh respondent I have been able to formulate this impression that the appellant had treated the respondent with cruelty after 23.8.1995 particularly on 19.11.1995 and also by filing false and frivolous complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC. She had not behaved in a responsible manner when she levelled bald allegation that her husband is carrying on with a woman without disclosing the name etc. of that lady. Fven it is admitted impliedly by Harpal Kaur that she moved an application before the police and on that application the parties were called just after few months of the first compromise of August, 1995. What was the necessity of this application when it was earlier agreed upor in August, 1995 that with in a period of six months the husband will arrange an accommodation at a place other than village Bhadewal and the parties would start residing in a peaceful manner. All it indicates that there was some wrong on the part of the wife. The statement of Nahar Singh RW2 also indicates that for a period of two years the relations between the parties remained cordial and thereafter differences arose between them. The statement of Lachhtnan Singh RW3 is of no help in view of the earlier compromise arrived at between the parties in the month of August, 1995. Through the statement of Sukhminder Kaur an effort was made to show that the husband is at blame when he had been treating the wife with cruelty, as a result of which the wife was medically examined, but my impression is that after the compromise of August, 1995 the wife never intended to go to the house of her husband. She wanted to teach a lesson to her husband. She wanted to humiliate him and that is the reason that on his application the husband was insulted by the police in the presence of his relations and no self-respecting husband will be able to tolerate this type of insult.
18. I reject the defence of the appellant-wife that the respondent-husband made a demand of dowry or that he wanted to eliminate her. I have condoned all acts of cruelty committed on the part of the wife prior to June, 1995 but all those acts of cruelty have to be reckoned which have been committed by the wife after August, 1995 and prior to the filing of present petition. Otherwise also, it is a broken marriage, The parties are admittedly residing separately since May/June, 1995.
19. The learned Counsel for the respondent relies upon Smt. Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha, AIR 1994 SCI562, where in para No. lOofthe judgment it was held as follows :-
".....Furthermore we reach this conclusion without any mental compunction because it is evident that for whatever be the reasons this marriage has broken down and the parties can no longer live together as husband and wife, if such is the situation it is better to close the chapter."
20. In this case also when the parties had gone to the extent of getting arrested each other, what is the use of keeping this marriage. The appellant-wife has not taken any step after May/June, 1995 to live in the matrimonial home. On the contrary, her conduct is that she got arrested the husband in Police Station, Payal and also in Delhi. She filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. levelling frivolous allegation of adultery without any responsibility.
21. In this view of the matter, I affirm the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1.
As a consequence of my above discussion the appeal of Smt. Harpal Kaur fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
22. Appeal dismissed.