Vijay Singh vs Bhupinderjit Kaur

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated August, 6, 1990, who on a petition by the wife u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, had granted the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty against the respondent, the present appellant. The challenge to the order of the Trial Court is primarily on the ground that the Trial Court has not property appreciated the evidence on record and that the petitioner-respondent has not been able to substantiate the allegation of cruelty.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts of the case are that marriage of the appellant with Bhupinderjit Kaur was solemnized on 23.1.1987 and after the marriage they resided together and cohabited in village Haryana. No child was born out of the wedlock. The petitioner had alleged that the respondent used to beat her occasionally and on one occasion had given her a stab injury. She was subsequently turned out of the house as her parents could not meet the demand of refrigerator, Bajaj Chetak Scooter and Colour T.V. raised by the respondent. It was also pleaded that dowry worth Rs. 50,000/- was given in her marriage. The petitioner also pleaded that she was maltreated by the respondent on the ground that he did not like her for having brought insufficient, dowry. It has been alleged that the petitioner resided with her parents at Hoshiarpur as the respondent had sprinkled kerosene on her to burn her. All efforts for reconciliation having failed, the petitioner filed the present petition.

The petition was resisted. The respondent denied the allegations that he ever made any demand for refrigerator, Bajaj Chetak Scooter or Coloured T.V. or that dowry articles worth Rs. 50,000/- were supplied at the time of marriage. The husband had taken the plea that in fact the petitioner had maltreated him and her in laws wanted him to live in their house as ''Ghar Jawai''.

On the said pleadings the learned Trial Court framed the following issues :

(1) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty ? OPA.

(2) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition ? OPA.

(3) Relief.

Issue No. 2 was not pressed before the Trial Court and on issue No. 1 the finding was returned against the respondent.

I have gone through the entire paper book and perused the case file.

In order to prove the alleged cruelty, the petitioner herself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and reiterated the version as given in the petition. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she had filed an application against her husband and his father in Police Station Haryana as they were maltreating her. She also stated that a stab injury was given to her by there husband in October 1987, in the presence of Kundan Lal (PWR). Kundan Lal while appearing as PW2 supported the version of the petitioner. The allegation of cruelty has been supported by Piara Singh (PW4), father of the petitioner, who stated that he could not meet the demand of the respondent-husband for Rs. 40,000/- in cash and that of other articles like refrigerator, TV & Scooter. Respondent-husband has not been able to rebut the evidence of the petitioner on the point of cruelty.

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner having established her case of cruelty against the respondent, she was rightly held entitled to a decree of divorce on the said ground. This appeal is accordingly dismissed being without any metit with costs. Costs Rs. 1000/-.