Amarjit Singh vs Balbir Kaur @ Raghbir Kaur

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is husband''s appeal whose petition for dissolution of marriage u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been dismissed by the trial Court.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised in March, 1982. According to the husband, the wife left the matrimonial home in April, 1982 whereas according to the wife, she was turned out of the house in November 1984. However, a daughter was born out of this wed lack though according to the husband, his wife was leading adulterous life and, therefore, the said daughter was not from his loins. He filed the petition for divorce on 27-7-1985 alleging therein that from the very start the behaviour of the wife was very harsh and cruel. She is a lady of spend thrift character and wanted to live luxurious life. She started putting pressure on him to settle in Tehsil Patti and support her parents to which he declined. She started humuliating and insulting him in the eyes of his friends and relations. She used abusive language. Moreover neither she nor her parents disclosed her exact age at the time of marriage. After two days of the marriage, he arranged a party of his friends in his house but his wife abruptly came there and she started abusing him and insulting him before his friends and threw away the articles lying on the table. According to the husband, this conduct on the part of his wife amounts to mental cruelty. He also alleged that the wife has desserted him for the last more than two years without any sufficient cause and was living adulterous life. According to the husband, she has been seen in the company of many persons and she even gave birth to a child as a result of adultery on her part.

In the written statement, the wife denied the correction of each allegation levelled against her by her husband. She maintained that she was admitted in the hospital on 20-9-1984 at Jhabal where the daughter was born to her from the loins of the petitioner. According to her averments, after sometime of the marriage the petitioner and his parents sisters and brother started taunting and maltreating her on the ground that she had brought insufficient dowry; that she was not beautiful and was blackish in colour. The husband has beaten her mercilessly without any rhyme and reason but she had been tolerating the atrocities meted out to her being faithful and dutiful wife and with the hope that she would be kept properly by her husband. According to her she was got admitted in the hospital by her husband''s mother where she gave birth to a female child but after the birth of the child, the petitioner and his family members refused to accept her on the pretext that she had given birth to female child and not to a male child. She was ultimately turned out of her matrimonial home in three wearing apparels after giving her beatings and remarking that she should bring Rs. 10,000/- from her parents in case she wanted to live with him.

In the replication filed by the husband, he denied the correctness of the stand taken in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the petition.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

Whether the respondent is guilty of cruelty towards the petitioner? OPP.

Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for continuous period of more than two years prior to the filing of the petition? OPP.

Whether the respondent has been living in adultery? OPP.

Relief.

Under Issue No. 1, the learned Additional District Judge, held that it has not been proved on the file if the wife is, in any way, guilty of cruelty towards her husband Under Issue No. 2, it was concluded that there is nothing to disbelieve the stand of the wife on this aspect, in any manner, more especially when statement of the husband as well as evidence led by him on the point of cruelty has already been discarded. Issue No. 3 was also decided against the husband and it was held that the husband had failed to prove that the wife was leading any adulterous life as alleged. Consequently, the divorce petition was dismissed.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence led by the parties. According to the learned counsel, there was no rebuttal to the evidence produced by the husband. The evidence has been wrongly discarded on the ground that the witnesses produced by him were interested. It was also contended that from the evidence it was amply proved that the wife left the matrimonial home in April 1982, and did not turn up after that and, therefore, the husband had no excesses to his wife and, therefore, the daughter born to her was not from his loins. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the arrogant behaviour of the wife, as proved on the record, amounts to mental cruelty. In support of this contention, he referred to Shri Amrik Singh P.C.S. v. Shrimati Surjit Kaur 1975 H.L.R. 44, Smt. Kamla Devi v. Balbir Singh AIR 1979 J. & K. 4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

The learned trial Court has discussed the entire evidence in detail and ultimately came to the conclusion that the story propounded by the husband that he did his best to bring back the wife also could not be said to be on sound footing rather he believed the counter version set up by the wife. According to the trial Court, the panchayat on behalf of the wife approached the husband and it was he who refused to keep and maintain her without any sufficient cause. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said finding of the trial Court. There is no cogent explanation on the part of the husband as to why the wife was not willing to live with him. If the behaviour of the wife was harsh as alleged by him. Then there was no occasion for him to send the panchayats to bring her back to matrimonial home. Apart from that, the husband made wild allegations of adultery against his wife but there was absolutely no evidence to that effect. It further shows his conduct that the husband wanted to get rid of his wife by making false allegations against her. Even on the question of desertion, there was no cogent evidence rather it was the husband who was not willing to keep her in the materimonial home.

In these circumstances, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.