Chhota Singh vs Amarjit Kaur

A.P. Chowdhri, J.—This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. No. 93-M as well as F.A.O. No. 94-M, both of 1988. These appeals are directed against two separate judgments and decrees whereby petitioner''s application u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, were dismissed. The . appellants in the two'' appeals are real brothers and the respondents are two real sisters. It appears that both the sisters were married at the same time and various material incidents which have a bearing on the present controversy took place together. The parties have led identical evidence in both the cases. It will, be convenient to refer to the facts in F.A.O. No. 93 of 1988 (Chhota Singh v. Amarjit Kaur).

The petitioner was married with the respondent about 16 years before filing of the present petition, which works out to the year 1970. About six months prior to the filing of the petition, the respondent''s father came to the petitioner''s village and took her away on the pretext that she had to attend marriage of a close relation. The respondent took away her ornaments and valuable clothes � while going. She failed to return thereafter. The petitioner later on came to know that there was no marriage amongst the relations of the respondent. He went to fetch the respondent, but the respondent declined to come with him, insisting that the petitioner must start living separately from his parents and only on that condition being fulfilled she would go and live with him in the matrimonial house. The petitioner went again to the respondent''s parental village along with Ajmer Singh, Gujjan Singh, Ram Singh Mistri and Dr. Tara Singh etc. To persuade the respondent and her father, but to no purpose. In fact, the aforesaid panchayat was also told that the petitioner must arrange to reside separately from his parents and only then it would be considered whether the respondent would join him or not. It was, therefore, averred that the respondent had withdrawn from the petitioner''s society without any reasonable cause and hence the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

The petition was contested. It was stated that the petitioner had been giving beating to the respondent and she along with her sister, who was married to the real brother of the petitioner, were turned out of the house after giving beating to them. The respondents were told not to come back except after arranging for sufficient dowry. Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In the course of efforts for compromise, Bhan Singh, father of the petitioner, Jagrup Singh Sarpanch of village Pharwahi and Dial Singh son of Modan Singh, of the same village, gave affidavits, undertaking to be sureties for the fact that the petitioner would not beat or maltreat the respondent. On that assurance, the respondent rejoined her husband and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was got dismissed as compromised. However, there was no improvement in the attitude of the petitioner and the respondent continued to be given beating. Ultimately she was turned out of the house about 3-1/2 years prior to the institution of the petition. It was further stated that the respondent had filed an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance and the present petition had been instituted by the opposite party as a counter-blast to the said petition and it was, in fact, not bona fide.

The learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner with reasonable cause? OPR.

Relief.

On behalf of the respondent, the respondent appeared as RW- 1 and examined Harchand Singh RW-2, Sadhu Ram RW-3 and he real uncle Baldev Singh RW-4, Harchand Singh, Sadhu Singh and Baldev Singh had accompanied some other respectables twice in order to persuade the petitioner to rehabilitate the respondent. The petitioner did not relent.

On behalf of the petitioner, both the petitioners appeared as AW-1 in their respective cases and examined Jagrup Singh Sarpanch AW-2, Ajmer Singh AW-3 and Mohinder Singh AW-4. Mohinder Singh is married to a third sister of the respondents and his wife is also living at her parental house and according to him, all the three daughters of Pritam Singh were living with their father of their own accord.

On a consideration of the above evidence, the learned trial Court held that the respondent was forced to live separately from the petitioner on account of conduct of the latter and, therefore, the petitioner in each case was not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights. The petitions were accordingly dismissed. Hence these appeals.

8.The contention of Mr. B.S. Bhasaur, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the trial Court has been unduly influenced by the fact that at an earlier stage Jagrup Singh Sarpanch, Dial Singh and father of the petitioner had given written surety that the petitioner would not beat or maltreat the respondent as if it were a confession that the petitioner did, in fact, beat the respondent. According to Mr. Bhasaur, the surety was furnished to allay the fear of the respondent. It was by way of abundant caution and to inspire confidence in the respondent and her parents.

A perusal of the entire judgment of the trial Court shows that the above conclusion is not solely based on the suggested admission but it has been taken into consideration as one of the circumstances admitted on record that on an earlier occasion, three respectable persons including father of the petitioner had given assurance to the respondent and her relations on the paternal side that the respondent would not be beaten or maltreated. In the nature of things, the writ-tea assurance specifically mentioning about beating does indicate a certain background or at least a complaint of that type from the respondent. It cannot be considered to be a clean chit to the petitioner. This above admitted fact can certainly be taken into consideration for appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

Mr. Bhasaur next point out that the petitioners had examined Mohinder Singh AW-4 who is married to third sister of the respondents (in both appeals), who too is living with her parents. Mohinder Singh AW-4 claimed that all the sisters were living with their parents of their own accord. His evidence has been disbelieved by the trial Court and I entirely agree that the evidence of Mohinder Singh does not at all inspire confidence. A married daughter''s living in the parents'' house after the marriage is generally not considered normal. Eye brows are raised. In the absence of any cogent reasons, there is nothing to believe that the three married daughters of Pritam Singh are living with their father of their own choice.

Lastly, Mr. Bhasaur submitted that even though the respondent had suffered visible marks of injuries on her person, the same were not shown to any one, nor she got herself medically examined. In matrimonial matters, any such attempt is likely to jeopardise future chances of a reunion. It is for this reason that in matters of this nature one does not rush to the police to lodge a report or to get one self medically examined.

After carefully considering the material on record, I find no merit in both, the appeals. Both the appeals fail and are dismissed, with the hope that better sense will prevail on the appellants and they would rehabilitate the respondents in the matrimonial house.