Jatinder Singh vs Roopleen Kaur

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1991 in Matrimonial Case No. 69/16 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana.

Admittedly, the parties were married on 2.12.1984. The appellant is a business man. His father is a retired Principal of a College. The respondent''s father was Prof. and Head of Department of Urology, Govt. Medical College, Patiala. In this wedlock the respondent gave birth to two daughters on 28.8.1985 and 20.9.1988 respectively. Since 15.8.1989 parties are living separately.

The appellant-husband has filed the aforementioned matrimonial case for divorce on the ground of cruelty. According to him, the respondent is a lady of short temper and is of quarrelsome nature. He tried to impress upon her to maintain the dignity and decency of the matrimonial home,but she failed to show any improvement in her behaviour. She being the only daughter of her parents, is a pampered child. She wanted him to sever his relations with his parents and other relatives. She also persuaded him to claim his share in the self-acquired property of his father. She used to insult and abuse not only the appellant, but his parents as well. Thereafter his parents have stopped coming to his house. Sometimes the respondent was violent in her behaviour. He requested her parents to persuade her to improve her behaviour, but conversely they blamed him. She went to her parental home and on the intervention of Dr. M.S. Chug and S. Harpal Singh they were united after 8 months of separation. The respondent also asked him to transfer all his movable and immovable properties in her name so that if anything happens to him during his business tours she may not be subjected to any inconvenience thereafter.

He further alleged that on 15.8.1989, her parents, uncle and brother came to his house. At that time, her brother Arvinder Singh was armed with a Kirpan and her uncle Kulwinder Singh was carrying a pistol. At her instigation, her father, uncle and brother belaboured him with fists. He sustained 10 injuries in this incident. Her uncle fired at him, but he could save himself by ducking. Her brother gave him Kirpan blows with sheath on. At her instigation they also took away her jewellery and his cash. She asked them not to kill him at present moment and see the effect of beating. He got himself medically examined and thereafter lodged the report at the Police Station. The respondent filed petitions before the D.I.G. Police and Director General of Police, Punjab, making false allegations that due to demand of dowry she was treated cruelly by her husband. These allegations were reiterated in her petition filed u/s 125, Cr.P.C. She filed a petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. in the High Court on 2.4.1990 to quash the F.I.R. lodged by him and in that petition also she made false allegations that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband. Thus at the instance of her parents and uncle, she treated him with cruelty thereby she has caused him mental and physical tortures. He has not condoned these acts of cruelty. Thus on this ground, he prayed for a decree of divorce.

The respondent denied all the allegations of alleged cruelty. According to her, at the time of marriage valuable gifts and articles were given in dowry, but still the appellant and his parents were not satisfied. The appellant was running a flourishing business. He was owning two cars and two telephone connections. She never abused or quarrelled with him or his relations. Conversely she was mal-treated by him. He used to beat her at the instigation of his parents. She was always taunted by them for bringing less dowry. They wanted money to purchase a new car. She intimated her parents about their demand. After the delivery of the second daughter she was totally neglected by the appellant for 8 months. On 10.6.1989 his mother insisted that she should drink the milk offered by her which was not good for health. She told the appellant about that incident, but he did nothing. On 17.5.1988 when she was carrying 5 months'' pregnancy the appellant beat her. After reconciliation she came back to her matrimonial home on 11.5.1989. But despite assurance of good behaviour the appellant''s behaviour towards her was the same. She never asked him to transfer his assets in her name or to get his share in the property owned by his father.

She averred that on 14.8.1989 the appellant came back from his business tour. On enquiry when he was told that her uncle visited her in his absence, he became violent, abused her parents, beat her and asked her to get out of the house at 10.30 p.m. She somehow managed to stay on, but she informed her parents on phone of this incident. On 15.8.1989, her father, brother and her uncle came. In their presence also, the appellant treated her cruelly and tried to strangulate her, but she was saved by her relations. She lodged a report at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana but the Police advised her to come on 17.8.1989. Her husband lodged a false report against her, her parents, brother and uncle. She admitted that she filed a petition before higher police officials for redressal of her grievances. She also admitted that she filed a petition in the High Court for quashing the F.l.R. lodged by her husband, but according to her, she never treated her husband with cruelty, rather he subjected her to cruelty.

On appraisal of the evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner-husband has failed to prove that the respondent-wife has treated him with cruelty. Thus his petition was dismissed.

The appellant''s learned Counsel, contended that after marriage, respondent''s behaviour with the petitioner-appellant and his family members was not cordial. She used to abuse them and fight with them. Because of her quarrelsome nature, the appellant''s parents stopped coming to him. She asked him to transfer his assets in her name. She also persuaded the appellant to get his share in the properties owned by his father. She made false allegation that his mother tried to give her poison in milk on 10 6.1989. She wrote him letter Ex. P-3 dated 11.6.1989, but in this letter she has not mentioned this episode. Had it been true; she would have mentioned it in this letter which she sent to him. He further pointed out that she has filed letters Exhibits R-l to R-6. But according to him, letters R-2 to R-6 are fabricated and forged documents. They were prepared later on. This is evident from the fact that they do not bear the seal of the Post Office where they were delivered.

The learned Counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the Trial Court has wrongly mentioned that the appellant lodged the report of the alleged incident on 13.9.1989. It is evident from the report Exhibit P-2 that this report was lodged on 16.8.1989 though the DDR is dated 13.9.1989. The appellant has proved that on 15.8.1989 her parents, brother and uncle came to his house. Her mother caught hold of his hair, her uncle and brother gave him fist blows causing several injuries on his person. Her uncle fired at him, but he could avert the injury by ducking. Her brother gave him Kirpan blows with sheath on. They took away jewellery and cash also from his house. At the time of this incident when he shouted for help, his brother Jasminder Singh (P.W.4) came for his help along with his two friends. They saw the whole of the incident. The appellant is duly corroborated by the statements of Jasminder Singh (P.W.4) and Dr. Bimal Kanish (P.W.I). The appellant has proved that immediately after the incident, he went to the Police Station, on their advice got him medically examined and on 16.8.1989 he lodged the report at Police Station, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. Though according to him full details of the incident were not recorded by the Police, admittedly he lodged a private complaint and that case is pending against the respondent, her parents, brother and her uncle.

He further argued that even thereafter she filed applications before the higher police officials making false allegations against him. Even in the petition filed u/s 482, Cr.P.C. in the High Court, she made false allegations against him that he treated her with cruelty and demanded dowry. He also pointed out that the incident of 15.8.1989 took place in her presence. She instigated her relations to beat the appellant. Since 16.8.1989 she is living separate even after the lodging of that F.I.R. and this petition for divorce. She has not resumed cohabitation nor has come back to her matrimonial home. Her offer to live with him is a ritual. It lacks sincerity and bonafides. It is a mere attempt to thwart his prayer for dissolution of marriage. To support his contentions, he has relied upon Usha v. Vimal Kumar 1987(1) H.L.R. 166 Samiti Khanna Vs. Aroon Khanna, and Ashok Kumar v. Smt. Vijay Laxmi 1992(2) H.L.R. 612.

The respondent''s learned Counsel stressed vehemently that the appellant has utterly failed to prove the ground of cruelty. He has admitted that after marriage they had cordial relations for 3 years. This shows that his allegation is absolutely false that soon after her marriage her behaviour in the matrimonial home was insulting and humiliating. According to him, the respondent has proved that the appellant''s behaviour was not good towards her. He and his mother wanted Rs. one lac for purchasing a car. No doubt he owns two cars and two telephones, but in his reply to petition filed u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, he has pleaded that he is earning only Rs. 2,200/- per month. She has written letters to him and to her parents which are Exhibits R-l toR-6. A bare perusal of these letters reveal that he treated her with cruelty. He forbade her not to write to her parents, not to meet them and her uncle was not allowed to come to her house. Sufficient money was not given to her for house-hold expenditure. He and his mother demanded Rs. one lac to purchase a car.

Refuting the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, he contended that if another seal of the post office receiving these letters (Exhibits R-2 to R-6) for distribution is not affixed, this circumstance will not brand these letters as fabricated documents. The appellant has admitted that before her second delivery the only point of discord between the two was about the place of her delivery. She wanted to go to her parental home as her father is a Doctor. But the appellant insisted that she should have her delivery in the matrimonial home. When she went away for 8 months, they were living separately, but on the intervention of certain relations, they reconciled and were re-united on 1.5.1989. Thereafter also he treated her with cruelty. On the night of 14.8.1989 he beat her, turned her out of the house at 10.30 p.m. She managed to stay on, but informed her parents of this incident on phone. Thereupon her parents, brother and uncle came to her matrimonial home on 15.8.1989. In their presence also the appellant tried to strangulate her. He abused her relations. Her brother could save her life. He pointed out that in this scuffle the appellant might have sustained certain injuries, but the report lodged by him is totally false.

He lodged this report on 16.8.1989 in the evening though allegedly the incident took place on 15.8.1989. This shows thatafter due deliberation this report was lodged by him. He got himself medically examined by a Doctor of his choice. Dr. Bimal Kanish (P.W. 1) had to admit that though allegedly he examined a medico-legal case, he did not inform the police. As per report Exhibit P-l, the appellant was having 10 minor injuries. Dr. Bimal Kanish (P.W.I) has stated in his cross-examination that these injuries cannot be self-inflicted. He has further argued that in the report Exhibit P-2 the appellant has not reported that her mother also came with the respondent''s father or she caught hold of his hair or the respondent instigated her father, uncle and brother to beat the appellant or at that time her uncle fired from a pistol or her brother gave him Kirpan blows with a sheath on. These material omissions go to show that just to prepare a ground for divorce, he has lodged a false report against the respondent and her relations. As this was a false report, she filed a petition in the High Court for its quashment.

He further pointed out that the alleged petition filed by the respondent before the higher police officials are not on record. She has not made any false allegation against her husband in the petition filed u/s 125, Cr.P.C. According to him, Senior Superintendent of Police cancelled the DDR and thereafter he has filed a private complaint about the alleged incident dated 15.8.1989 which is still pending in the Court.

Cruelty is not defined in Hindu Marriage Act. It is to he determined on consideration of various factors such as social status, background, custom and traditions, caste and community, upbringing of the parties and public opinion prevailing in the locality. Cruelty should be of such type which should satisfy the Court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress. It should be proved that the atmosphere in the matrimonial home is so surcharged that it is not conducive mental and physical health of any of the spouses to live together. It need not be of such a character as to cause danger to life, or health. The authorities cited by the appellant''s learned Counsel are distinguishable on facts.

In this case the husband-appellant has utterly failed to prove that the respondent treated him with cruelty. He has admitted that after marriage for 3 years they were having cordial relations. His brother Jasminder Singh (P.W.4) stated that after one year of their marriage due to quarrelsome nature of the respondent, his parents stopped coming to her matrimonial home. From the appellant''s statement it is clear that before her second delivery, they had a dispute about the place of her delivery. As she went to her parental home, they were living apart from 8months, buton the intervention of Dr. M.S. Chug and S. Harpal Singh they reconciled and were re-united on 11.5.1989. About the poison incident there is no reliable evidence, but she has mentioned it in her letter, Ex. R-4 dated 12.6.1989. His treatment towards her is also evident from her letters, Exhibits R- 2 to R-6 From a bare perusal of these letters, it is evident that whenever his parents came, he tried to find fault with her. He objected to her brothers coming to her matrimonial home. He asked her not to write letters to her parents. Whenever he came back after meeting his parents his behaviour towards her was not good. About demand of Rs. one lac she has mentioned it in her letter Exhibit R-3, which was written in May, 1989. If the letters Exhibits R-2 to R-6 do not bear the seal of the place where they were delivered, it cannot be held on this count alone that they are fabricated documents. Thus her ocular evidence is duly corroborated by her these letters.

So far as the incident of 15.8.1989 is concerned, the Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the appellant''s evidence. From his statement, it is clear that he has tried to exaggerate. In his report Ex. P-2 there is no mention of any firing with a pistol by her uncle, her brother hitting him with a Kirpan and her mother holding him by his hair. He has also admitted that she telephoned them to come. She has stated that on the night of 14.8.1989 when he was informed by her that in his absence her uncle came, her became violent, beat her and turned her out of the house. She managed to stay on. Thereafter she telephoned her parents and informed them of the incident. Thereupon on 15.8.1989 at about 7.30 p.m. they all came. Before them also, he tried to strangulate her. She was saved by her brother. He has mentioned in the report that they trespassed into his house and after beating him they took away his cash and her jewellery from his house, The allegation by itself shows the despise that he has for his in-laws.

No doubt Dr. Bimal Kanish (P.W.I) has found 10 injuries on his person and has testified that all these injuries cannot be self-inflicted but he cannot be believed on this count as he has not given any reason why these injuries cannot be self-inflicted. Further the appellant has stated that hearing his shrieks, his brother and two of his friends came to his rescue. From his statement, it is evident that after the alleged beating was over, his brother came with his friends, but conversely his brother Jasminder Singh has corroborated him by giving all the details of this incident. The appellant has not examined those two independent witnesses (Kuldip Singh and Satinder Singh) to corroborate him on this point.

Definitely some incident took place on the evening of 15.8.1989. Both the parties have interpreted it in their own way. The appellant lodged the report on 16.8.1989. If the incident would have been of the type as he has alleged in his divorce petition, he would have lodged the report on the night of 15.8.1989 and not on the evening of 16.8.1989. Admittedly, his house is only 3/4 Kms. away from the concerned Police Station. In that event after lodging of the report he would have been sent by the Police for medical examination and not vice versa. Thus his evidence about this incident is rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court.

Even this allegation is not proved by him that due to her quarrelsome behaviour his parents stopped coming to him. From her letters Exhibit R-l to R-6, it is evident that his parents were coming to her matrimonial home. He has also admitted that his brother lived with him from 1985 to 1990. Copies of her petitions filed under Sections 125 and 482, Cr.P.C. are on record. A bare perusal of these petitions reveals that she has not made any false allegation against the appellant. On oath, she has expressed her willingness to come back to her matrimonial home, but the appellant is adamant not to live with her. Now it cannot be said that their marriage is irretrievably broken and they have reached such a stage where it is not possible for them to live together in peace and harmony in the matrimonial home. They are having two daughters.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, I find that the appellant has utterly failed to prove that she has treated him with cruelty. Hence the Trial Court has rightly dismissed his petition. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed with costs.