Sukhwant Kaur vs Hazoor Singh

J.V. Gupta, C.J.—In this case arguments were heard on 6-8-1990 and after hearing the arguments, it was directed that the parties be present in person in order to find out any possibility of compromise. In spite of that, the wife-appellant has not appeared whereas husband was present in Court. Under the circumstances, we presume that the wife is not at all interested in any compromise.

The parties were married on 12-2-1966 at Safidon. No child was born to them. The husband, Hazoor Singh, filed the petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking a decree of divorce oh the allegation of cruelty committed by his wife. The said allegation has been denied by Smt. Sukhwant Kaur, the wife. She pleaded that since she had not been able to bear any child, her husband had contracted a second marriage with one Sinder Kaur. She further stated that this marriage had taken place on 23-5-1983 and it was thereafter that her husband filed the present petition for divorce with the malafide intention of getting rid of her. The trial Court found that Sukhwant Kaur had failed to produce convincing evidence to her prove her allegations but at the same time it was also held that the evidence adduced did not establish cruelty so as to entitle the husband for a decree of divorce on that ground. Consequently, divorce petition was dismissed.

In appeal, the learned Single Judge took the view that once the false allegation of adultery against a spouse is made, it amounts to cruelty in the eye of law. That being so, in the present case the wife made allegations against her husband that he had contracted a second marriage which was found to be false and, therefore, it amounts to cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Apart from that, the learned Judge found that "considered in their totality, therefore, the circumstances, as discussed, in the context of the evidence on record, leave no manner of doubt that there was no second marriage contracted by the husband and the allegations of the wife to this effect were wholly false and it would appear to her knowledge too." The learned Judge also found that this being a broken marriage is writ large on the facts and circumstances of the case. Such being the situation, the husband is clearly entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Learned counsel for the wife-appellant submitted that when the false allegations of adultery were made by the wife in her written-statement that by itself was not sufficient to hold that she was guilty of any cruelty. In support of his contention, reference was made to Smt. Raj Bala v. Gajinder Singh and others 1988 (1) P L R 133; and Raj Pal v. Smt. Sukhbir 1988 (1) P L R 300. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that once it is found that it is a broken marriage and the wife not interested at all to join the matrimonial home and was rather making false allegations against her husband, it was a fit case for divorce and no interference was called for in appeal. In support of his contention, he referred to Smt. Saroj Rani Vs. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha, . After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and without going into the case law cited at the bar, we find no ground for interference in this appeal. Even the-conduct of the wife in this Court appears to be that she is not at all interested to join the matrimonial home. She has not even cared to come to this Court for settlement, if any. The marriage between the parties had taken place about 24 years back and the petition for divorce was filed in the year 1983. Since then they are living separately. Under these circumstances, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.