Harvinder Kaur vs Modan Singh

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—Appellant wife has come in appeal against the dismissal of her divorce petition filed u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ''the Act'').

The appellant has alleged that she was married to the respondent on January 26,1988 at village Rogla. Thereafter, they resided in village Dirba. No child was born out of this wedlock. Her parents spent money over and above their capacity, but instead, the respondent and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry. On account of this, they started maltreating her. Sometime, she was beaten by the respondent. They also disliked her as she is a woman of short stature. The respondent started demanding Rs. 20,000/- or Motor Cycle. Three/four times, she came to matrimonial home, but every time, she was beaten by her husband. The respondent is alcohol addict and has other vices also. Physical torture was given to her. Her father brought panchayat on 7th May, 1988 and made a request to rehabilitate her, but after their departure on 10th May, 1988 she was beaten and was turned out of the matrimonial home by the respondent. Since then, she is residing in her parents'' house. Though, her father made several efforts for effecting rehabilitation, but to no avail. Hence, on the ground of cruelty, she has prayed for a decree of divorce.

The respondent in his written statement admitted the fact of marriage but denied all other allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry. According to him, her father came to take her and she took away all her jewellery etc. Thereafter, she did not join him. He convened a panchayat also, himself went to bring her back, but she and her father declined.

The parties adduced evidence in support of their pleas. After weighing the evidence on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petition wife has failed to prove the ground of cruelty. Hence, her petition was dismissed.

The appellant''s learned Counsel contended that the petitioner/ appellant has adduced cogent evidence to prove that when she was living in the matrimonial home, she was treated with cruelty by her husband. She was not liked by him on the ground that she is of short stature. Her husband demanded a motor cycle or Rs. 20,000/- in dowry. Since this demand could not be satisfied by her father, he beat her when she was in the matrimonial home. He is a man of many vices. She was turned out of the matrimonial home and, thereafter, the respondent failed to rehabilitate her; though, her father made several attempts for that.

Her Counsel strongly stressed that the Trial Court has wrongly disbelieved her evidence on flimsy grounds. The Trial Court has mentioned that she has not stated that she was turned out of the matrimonial home, though, in her examination-in-chief, she has categorically stated that after 4/5 days, of the panchayat convened by her father, she was turned out of the house of the respondent. He further pointed out that the Trial Court has disbelieved the statement of Sawani Ram (PW-2) on the ground that demand of the motor cycle was not made in his presence. He was told by some body about that. The Trial Court has not carefully scanned the statement of this witness. He has clearly stated that he was a member of the panchayat. He went to the respondent''s house. There, it was told that motor cycle be given to the respondent and then only the petitioner would be rehabilitated. He further submitted that the respondent- husband has not assigned any reason for her withdrawal, that further corroborates her that he treated her with cruelty and turned her out of the matrimonial home. Thus, a decree of divorce on this ground ought to have been passed in her favour.

The respondent''s Counsel did not appear for arguments.

From the perusal of the Trial Court''s record, it is clear that the appellant has stated that she was beaten by her husband and was turned out of the matrimonial home 4/5 days after, panchayat brought by her father went back. From the statement of Sawani Ram (PW-2) it is not evident that some body else told him that the respondent demanded a motor cycle. He was a member of the panchayat, which was convened by the appellant''s father. They all went to the respondent''s house. This witness has stated that during deliberations of the panchayat, it was told that motor cycle be given and only then, the petitioner would be rehabilitated. It seems that the Trial Court has not minutely scanned the evidence on record.

According to me, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, but on different reasons. It is clear from the statements of the appellant and her father that now the appellant does not want to go to her matrimonial home. Her father (PW-3) is emphatic that even if dowry is not demanded or surety is given that she will not be maltreated, he does not want to send his daughter to the respondent. The appellant has given an unequivocal statement that now she does not want to go to her matrimonial home as she apprehends danger to her life. Both the witnesses have admitted that the appellant was never medico-legally examined. She never lodged any report with the police. No complaint was made by her about the alleged maltreatment to any other person except her parents. In the petition, she alleged that she was maltreated by her husband as well as by his parents. On oath, she had to admit that her father-in-law never said anything to her and her mother- in-law never maltreated her. In the examination-in-chief, she has stated that the respondent never brought anything in the kitchen and she was not allowed to cook meals as all the things were kept in lock and key. But in the cross-examination, she had to admit that the respondent is the only son of her parents-in-law, who are having joint family, and the house-hold is run by her parents-in-law. The respondent has also stated that house-hold is run by his parents. So, the question of the respondent bringing anything from the market, does not arise.

The respondent has admitted that he is an illiterate agriculturist. He does not know even driving of motor cycle, he never maltreated his wife and never made any demand of motor cycle or cash. According to him and his witnesses, she went with her father to her parental home and, thereafter, she has not come back, though, he made several attempts to bring her back. He is still ready and willing to live with her.

The respondent has admitted that he is taller to his wife, but he has clearly said that he does not dislike her on this count. Even, the appellant has admitted that before marriage, the respondent and his parents had not seen her. Only after the marriage, they saw her. It seems that as she does not want to go to her matrimonial home, she has filed this petition to obtain divorce on the alleged ground of cruelty, though, she has failed to satisfy the Court that the respondent treated her with cruelty. Had it been so, she would have taken some legal steps against him for this alleged maltreatment and demand of dowry. She was married in January, 1988. Since May 10,1988, she is residing in her parental home. She filed this petition on 29th May, 1990. The respondent has stated that they lived together for two years. Even demand of motor cycle is not proved. PW-2 Sawani Ram has stated in his examination-in-chief that motor cycle was demanded but in the cross- examination, he has stated that demand for a scooter was made. According to her, after four /five days, there was a panchayat in which this witness came to her matrimonial home. On 10th May, 1988 she was out of the matrimonial home. Had it been true, she would have given some legal notice to the respondent or would have lodged a report against him or would have filed a criminal complaint against him u/s 498-A, I.P.C. but no such step was taken by her.

Her father PW-3 Nek Singh wants the Court to believe that when the appellant was turned out of the matrimonial home, fare was not given to her and, therefore, she came to the parental home in a bullock cart, but even the appellant has not stated so.

On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, I find that the appellant has utterly failed to prove that she was treated with cruelty by the respondent or was turned out of the matrimonial home on 10th May, 1988. Therefore, the appeal being without merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.