Tirlok Singh vs Raj Kaur

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral)

It is an unfortunate dispute between husband and wife. Tirlok Singh, the present appellant, was a divorcee. The respondent, his wife, was a widow. They were married on October 8, 1981. On January 16, 1983 a daughter was born out of this marriage. Since March 1984, the parties are in Court.

The appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. One of the issues before the Court was "Whether the respondent Raj Kaur is guilty of cruelty as alleged in the petition ?" OPA (this issue will also cover the allegation of the respondent that the petitioner was cruel to her). The petitioner had examined eight witnesses to prove his claim. At that stage by an order dated October 18, 1984 the learned trial Court closed his evidence. Thereafter on examination of the matter, the learned trial Court held that the allegations of cruelty made by the husband had not been categorically denied. These were proved by the evidence. Consequently, a decree of divorce was granted. The respondentwife appealed. The learned Single Judge reversed the decision with the observation that "on pleadings alone. ..... the allegations of cruelty could not be held to have been proved". It was further found that "the respondent himself (the present appellant), appearing as AW2, no doubt has narrated the aforesaid incidents but corroboration of the same is conspicuous by its absence". Thus, the appeal was accepted. In this situation, the husband has filed the Letters Patent Appeal.

Mr. Sarin, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the learned trial Court had by an order closed the evidence. In fact, the appellant wanted to produce more witnesses to corroborate the factual position as averred by him and show that the respondent was guilty of cruelty. On this basis, the learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the petition. The appellant deserves to be given a chance to adduce the evidence and prove the case. The claim made on behalf of the appellant has been controverted by Mr. O.P.S. Tanwar who has appeared for the respondent.

A perusal of the record of the trial Court shows that the appellant had produced four witnesses on September 10, 1984. On that date, the case was adjourned to October 17, 1984, On this date, the Court postponed the matter to October 18, 1984. On the said date, the statements of four witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the evidence of the petitioner, the present appellant, was "closed by order". The case was adjourned for the evidence of the respondent. Mr. Sarin submits that the evidence was not closed on account of any lapse on the part of the appellant. It was closed by the Court only on account of the fact that in its view the allegations had not been clearly denied by the respondentwife. It is clear that no such reason is apparent from the record. Yet the fact remains that the evidence had been closed by order. In our view, in the circumstances of the case, it would be just and fair to allow the appellant an opportunity to adduce such other evidence as he may wish to.

It is, undoubtedly, correct that the matter has remained pending for a long time. Equally, it appears to us that the marriage has irretrievably broken. The parties have been staying apart for a long time. Inspite of that, even the efforts for reconciliation have not succeeded. Should the stalemate be prolonged or can the matter be decided ? The evidence that may be adduced by the appellant might provide the answer.

Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, we think that the appellant''s interest cannot be allowed to be prejudiced on account of the order passed by the learned trial Court. Keeping in view the finding of the learned Single Judge that the allegations made by the appellant had not been corroborated by any other evidence, it appears to be necessary to give him an opportunity to adduce the evidence. Still further, since the evidence had been closed by an order of the Court, the inferences drawn against the appellant cannot be sustained. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are set aside and the matter is remanded for trial for allowing the appellant an opportunity to adduce the evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on February 16, 1998. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the matter as expeditiously as possible and conclude the proceedings within six months. It is clarified that even the respondentwife shall be allowed to adduce evidence as she may wish to. The record shall be sent to the trial Court immediately. No costs.