Manprit Kaur vs Balwinder Singh

Sneh Prashar, J.—This was an appeal filed by Manprit-appellant assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Jagadhri in H.M.A. case No. 115 of 1997/24.12 of 1997 whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short '' the Act of 1955'') filed by Balwinder Singh-respondent was allowed.

The facts which need to be recapitulated are as under:

"The marriage between the parties were solemnized on 10.12.1991 at Village Ram Garh Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, they cohabited as husband and wife at village Modli, Tehsil Jagadhri and out of the wedlock, two sons were born.

The respondent averred that the initial period after marriage passed peacefully but after six months of the marriage, the appellant started misbehaving and harassing him and his widowed mother on one pretext or the other. She developed the habit of leaving the matrimonial home without informing him and he used to bring her back after much persuasion. She pressurized him to live separately from his mother and brother but he was not prepared to do so because his father had expired and he felt that it was his duty to look after his mother being the eldest son. The appellant then started harassing him by refusing to cook food for the family; picking up quarrels on trivial matters; beating the children mercilessly without any reason; and insulting him in the presence of relatives and guests.

The respondent further pleaded that in January, 1995 when the behaviour of the appellant became intolerable, he called his brother-in-law (Phool Singh) and his maternal uncle to make her understand, they persuaded her to live peacefully and behave properly but the appellant did not bother for their advise and hurled abuses at him and his mother in their presence. She threatened that in case, she is forced to live with the family, she would commit suicide and would involve them in a false dowry death case.

It was further pleaded by the respondent that he and the appellant then decided to live separately and an agreement to this effect was executed. But after some time, the attitude of the appellant again became cruel and harsh towards him. When she did not change her behaviour a Panchayat was convened on 17.12.1995 and with the intervention of the Panchayat, the matter was reconciled. Again after some time, the appellant started her cruel activities. She used to refuse to give him food in the night when he returned from fields and some times she did not even allow him to sleep in her room. Being fed up of her behaviour, he convened a Panchayat on 17.07.1997 and in the presence of the Panchayat, he accepted to live with the appellant and also agreed to transfer his land in her favour just to keep her happy. An agreement depicting the compromise was executed. Despite that, there was no change in the behaviour of the appellant. She openly threatened that after taking his land she would involve him in a dowry case. On 14.12.1997, a meeting of ''Saini Beradari'' was convened at his house and before the brotherhood, the appellant flatly refused to live with him and left the matrimonial home alongwith his father and brother. She took away with her all jewellery belonging to her and did not return thereafter. Hence, the respondent prayed for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant on the ground of physical and mental cruelty he had suffered at her hands."

The petition was contested by the appellant. In her written statement, she admitted that she and the respondent were legally married and had two sons born out of their wedlock. She pleaded that her father spent a huge amount and gave handsome dowry at the time of their marriage and all the dowry articles had been illegally retained by the respondent and his family members. She denied the allegations of misbehaviour etc. levelled against her by the husband and submitted that just after marriage, it was the respondent and his family members who had started maltreating and insulting her for bringing inadequate dowry. She kept mum hoping that things might improve with the passage of time but their attitude did not change and they continued to ill treat her. In January, 1993 she was turned out of the matrimonial home and was told that she would be kept only if she brings a scooter from her parents and Rs 25,000/- from her brother. The matter was brought to the notice of the Panchayat and a compromise dated 17.12.1995 was arrived at between the parties. The respondent still treated her with cruelty and ultimately she was turned out of the matrimonial home along with her minor children in wearing apparels in July, 1997. The factum of meeting of Panchayat on 17.07.1997 was admitted but denying all other allegations, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the petition.

The respondent filed replication controverting the allegations of the appellant and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

"1. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged? OPP.

Relief."

Both the parties adduced evidence to substantiate their rival contentions.

Husband-Balwinder Singh appeared as PW1 and also examined Davinder Singh Sharma PW2 and Sukhbir Singh Head Constable PW3 and tendered in evidence Ex. P1 agreement dated 06.04.1995; Ex. P2 Compromise dated 17.12.1995; Ex. P3 photostat copy of application given by Lajja Ram to S.P. Yamuna Nagar; Ex. P4 photostat copy of the compromise; Ex. PX carbon copy of compromise effected before S.H.O. Police station Chappar; Ex. PY statement of Manprit recorded by police.

On the other hand, the appellant herself stepped into the witness box as RW1 and to support her version examined RW2 Kehar Singh, RW3 Rajinder Singh and produced Ex. R1 compromise dated 17.12.1995; Ex. R2 agreement dated 17.07.1997.

On considering the evidence produced by the parties and the submissions made on their behalf the learned trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the husband had successfully proved that he had been treated with utmost cruelty by the appellant and therefore, he is entitled to the relief of divorce. Accordingly, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the husband.

Resultantly, the petition was allowed and a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the parties was passed.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.11.2000 passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant preferred the instant appeal.

Heard the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent and record perused.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the normal wear and tear of married life does not come within the ambit of ''cruelty'' which can be a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955. The husband alleged that the behaviour of the appellant towards him was harsh and cruel but no specific incident of cruelty could be narrated by him. His deposition consisted of imaginative allegations and the witnesses examined by him namely PW2-Davinder Sharma, PW3 Sukhbir Singh Head constable, who were independent persons, appeared only to prove some documents executed and not even a word was stated by them which could indicate that they had any personal knowledge with regard to the allegations of misbehaviour etc of the appellant as alleged by the husband. The only witness who supported the version of the respondent was PW4-Bupinder Singh his maternal uncle. Being a close relative of the husband he was an interested witness and therefore his statement could be given no weightage. The documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P4, Ex. PX and Ex. PY produced by the husband, at the most prove that there used to be quarrels between the parties, which forced them to approach the Panchayat and in the presence of brotherhood, both would reconcile the matter. At the time when the agreement/compromise etc. were executed between the parties, the appellant admittedly was living at her matrimonial house. Being under the influence and pressure of her in-laws family and respectables of the village and also because she always wanted to save the nuptial tie, she had signed the compromise reduced into writing. The said document could not now be used by the husband to say that the entire fault in the matrimonial discord was of the appellant and that amounted to cruelty towards him.

Referring to the statement of the appellant, learned counsel pointed out that despite all ups and downs in the marital life she had expressed her earnest desire to live with the husband.

To us, there appears no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. Indeed, it was held by the Apex Court in Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121 : (1987) 4 JT 433 : (1987) 2 SCALE 1008 : (1988) 1 SCC 105 : (1988) 1 SCR 1010 that the word ''cruelty'' has not been defined under the Act of 1955 but it has become a settled proposition of law that to constitute ''cruelty'' the conduct complained of should be grave and weighty so as to come to the conclusion that the complaining spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse. in other words, the act complained of should be something more serious than ordinary wear and tear of a married life.

Reverting to the instant case, no doubt, the parties have two sons out of the wedlock but from the ocular and documentary evidence adduced by them, it is apparent that they were not being able to pull on happily and smoothly since long. Often the quarrel between them had gone out of the four walls of the house and it was only with the meeting/intervention of Panchayat of her parental and in-laws village that the dispute used to be settled.

Way back on 06.04.1995, the agreement Ex. P1 was executed between the parties whereby they had decided to live independently giving liberty to each other to marry some other person, yet at the same time the husband had agreed that in case the appellant lived with him it will be his responsibility to provide her all necessities of life. At that time they had only one son. They continued to live thereafter in the conjugal company of each other, but again on 17.12.1995 a dispute arose which was settled with intervention of Panchayat vide compromise deed Ex. P2 proved by PW2-Davinder Sharma. Again in March, 1998, an application Ex. P3 was given by Lajja Ram brother of appellant-Manprit Kaur to the police stating about dispute between the parties, but the matter was again compromised on 18.03.1998 by way of compromise deed Ex. P3 proved by PW3 Sukhbir Singh Head Constable.

That was not the end of the matter. PW4-Bhupinder Singh maternal uncle of the husband proved the compromise Ex. P4 executed between the parties on 17.07.1977 in the presence of Panchayat. Vide compromise deed EX.P4 dated 17.07.1997 the respondent had agreed to give 3/4th share out of his property to the appellant and her children and to keep only 1/4th share with him. At the time of said agreement also Lajja Ram brother of the appellant was present. PW4-Bhupinder Singh added that even after taking property the behaviour of the appellant did not change and she remained adamant and harsh in her attitude. She gave a written application at police station Chappar and Mulana against her husband but the complaints made by her were found to be untrue.

There is yet another document which reveals the conduct and intention of the appellant Ex. PY is the statement given by the appellant before the police wherein she had stated that after taking 3/4th share in the land of her husband and two rooms and a verandha constructed by him for her, she would appear in the Court and give statement for taking divorce from her husband. She had also stated that after she gets the property she will have no connection whatsoever with Balwinder Singh. The instant petition was filed on 22.12.1997, meaning thereby that the statement Ex. PY was given by the appellant during the pendency of the petition. Yet surprisingly, when she appeared in the witness box as RW1 she stated that she was ready and willing to live with her husband. It is apparent from the conduct of the appellant that she had no interest in the husband and did not want to live with him.

Analyzing the ocular and documentary evidence of the parties the findings of the learned trial Court were as under:

"The fact regarding their relation and temperament is also revealed from the documents Ex. RI, Ex. PX, Ex. P3 to Ex. P4 etc. Had the parties been in a peaceful living and cordial relation, there was no occasion for them to take the matter before the Panchayat and even in the police-station. Ex. P4 clearly confirms that the parties have started living separately from the parents and if that is so, then Ex. P4 is the admitted document on the file and the copy of the same is Ex. R2 placed on the file. The law is well settled that a man can tell a lie but the document cannot. As such, the documents Ex. P4 and Ex. R2 confirm on the file that both the parties have started living separately from the parties of the petitioner and thus, the allegation of the petitioner to live from his parents i.e. from her widowed mother is found to be genuine and true and the same allegation has rightly been pleaded by the petitioner in his petition. The other allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent always pick up quarrels with him and she insulted him in the presence of relatives, friends and guests, is also evident from the written documents i.e. various compromise placed on the file by the petitioner, as well as by the respondent. Further, I would like to mention over here, that the statement of the petitioner/PW1 gets full support from the corroboration of PW4 Bhupinder Singh, who is pleaded to be a person present on both the occasion for settling the dispute in between both the parties. PW4 Bhupinder Singh, in his statement has categorically deposed that the respondent used to give threat to finish her life by burning or consuming some poisonous substance and compelled the petitioner to live separately. Further, the respondent/RW1 Manprit in her statement has stated that the parents of the petitioner used to give beating to her and in cross-examination in one breath it is stated by her that her father-in-law and her mother-in-law, had given beating several times, but in the next breath, she deposed that her father-in-law had died prior to their marriage. The cruelty on the part of the petitioner as alleged by the respondent is not proved or substantiated by leading any cogent and convincing evidence by the respondent, because even the complaints moved against the petitioner in the police proved untrue an false. Further, I would like to mention over here that there was no hitch with the respondent to bring her brother Lajja Ram, in the witness box to prove her allegations. But for the reasons best known to her the respondent has failed to produce the said witness in the witness box, who was the best piece of evidence with the respondent. The law is well settled that when the best piece of evidence is available and the same with held, it raises adverse inference against that party. The petitioner, on the other hand has well proved his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence PW2 Davinder Singh, and PW4 Bhupinder Singh. PW2 Davinder Sharma, who is a marginal witness to the document Ex. R2 has confirmed that the respondent has moved an application before the police and during the course of investigation it was found that the same was not a dowry case. Thus, the allegations of the respondent, that the petitioner demanded dowry from the respondent is not tenable or substantiated in the eyes of law."

Learned counsel for the appellant could point out no perversity or adversity emerging from the appreciation of evidence of the parties by the learned trial Court. As has already been observed above the appellant and his brother Lajja Ram gave applications to the police leveling allegations of maltreatment and demand of dowry against the husband but admittedly all her said allegations were found to be false. Needless to say that giving repeated false applications against the husband also amounted to mental cruelty towards him. It has been held by Hon''ble Apex Court in K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 3 AD 458 : AIR 2013 SC 2176 : (2013) 1 DMC 458 : (2013) 3 JT 97 : (2013) 171 PLR 149 : (2013) 2 RCR(Civil) 232 : (2013) 2 SCALE 735 : (2013) 5 SCC 226 : (2013) AIRSCW 1396 : (2013) 2 Supreme 80 that it is now beyond cavil that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it would invariably and indubitably constitute matrimonial cruelty, such as would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce.

Otherwise also, as is proved from the documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P4, there was not mere marital discord between the parties rather the conduct of the appellant complained of was grave and weighty and above that she herself had not been interested in living with the husband despite the fact that he was ready to give her 3/4th share out of his immovable property to her and her children. The marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down leaving no scope for them to live together.

Thus, there being no ground for intervention in the findings of learned trial Court and the appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.