Court: Punjab And Haryana High Court
Bench: JUSTICE Dr. Sarojnei Saksena
Ranbir Singh Vs. Balbir Kaur On 01 March 1995
Law Point:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Secs. 13(1)(ia), 13-A — Cruelty, Alternative relief in Divorce Proceedings — Living apart & depriving husband of co-habitation is an act of cruelty — No reasonable ground given by wife for living separately — Sudden rudeness in behaviour of husband not obvious — Wife deserted husband without plausible excuse — Failed to adduce cogent evidence of alleged beating by husband — Rather admitted that she was left at her parental home by her husband — Joint living impossible — Considering evidence on record, status, educational qualifications & public opinion — Held, it would be proper to grant decree for judicial separation & not divorce — Whether correct ? — (Yes)
JUDGEMENT
1. Husband petitioner Ranbir Singh has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed in H.M. Case No. 28 of 1987 decided on 16.12.1988 whereby his petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short the ‘Act’) was dismissed.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant-petitioner was married to the respondent-wife on 16.3.1976. At that time he was Head Constable in the Police Department. As the respondent-wife was in the process of her studies, the appellant-petitioner allowed her to continue her studies. She did her B.A. Thereafter she was sent for a diploma Course in Arts and Crafts which she completed at Narwana from 1977 to 1979. Thereafter, they lived together till February, 1980. She could not give birth to any child. ‘
3. The appellant-petitioner’s allegation was that after doing her diploma course when she came back to reside with him, her behaviour was nagging and dis-respectful not only towards him but towards his parents also. She never served meals to him. Never even a glass of water was given to him. At certain occasions, she bolted bed room from inside and despite his asking did not open it. Thus she treated him with cruelty. She left the matrimonial home in February, 1980 without his consent and against his will. Thereafter, she has failed to come back to him despite his several efforts to bring her back from her parental home. Hence he prayed for a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
4. The respondent-wife denied the allegations of cruelty and desertion. She plead inter alia that she lived with her husband at Sangrur till May, 1980 and thereafter also from 23rd September, 1984 to 10th October, 1984 she lived with him at Sangrur. Her behaviour was not disrespectful towards him or his parents. Conversely her husband had disliking for her on two counts, firstly she could not give birth to any child and secondly despite her best efforts she could not get any job for which her husband was insisting all through. She was given beating and was turned out of the house. She went back to her parental home. She came to live with him in September/October, 1984. Thereafter, she was left at her parental home by the petitioner and his parents. She and her parents made many attempts, convened Panchayats also and requested the petitioner-husband to rehabilitate her, but he totally refused to reside with her.
5. Trial Court scanned parties’ evidence minutely and came to the conclusion that the husband has utterly failed to prove that the respondent-wife treated him with cruelty or she has deserted him and has brought cohabitation permanently to an end.
6. The appellant’s learned Counsel contended that cruelty in matrimonial cases is not confined to physical cruelty. Even the mental cruelty falls in its ambit. The appellant-petitioner has proved that after gaining further educational qualifications, respondent’s behaviour towards him became very much cruel. She never served food to him. She was rude to him. On this point, he is corroborated by his parents. Nobody from outside the house is expected to know these facts. Hence corroboration from any independent witness could not be expected. Further he has stressed that the petitioner has proved that the respondent deserted him in 1980 and since then despite his many efforts to bring her back, she has refused to come back. On this point also, he is corroborated not only by the statements of his parents, but also by independent witnesses. The Trial Court has not taken into consideration this part of his statement that he is still willing to reside with her, but he apprehends that she may not involve him in some false case.
7. He further contended that from the statement of respondent it is evident that so long she was doing her diploma course she lived in Narwana from 1977 to 1979. If the petitioner husband never wanted to live with the respondent, he would not have allowed her to do this diploma course. That circumstance by itself proves that he not only wanted that she should live with him, but also wanted that she should gain further educational qualifications to live honourably in the society. But to his chagrin, after doing the diploma course her behaviour became rude towards him. In February, 1981 the appellant-petitioner was transferred to Sherpur. Before that, they lived together at Sangrur and when she was living with him at Sangrur, she was treated well by him, but her complaint is that at Sherpur he started teasing and insulting her. He has stated that on 4.2.1981 she was brought to Sangrur on Motor Cycle by her husband and mother-in-law. Before leaving Sherpur, she was beaten by him. At Sangrur also, she was beaten and was turned out of the house, but in the second breath she has admitted that for one day she lived at Sangrur and thereafter she was taken to village Bhullar Heri on the pretext that her brother had called her. They left her at Bhullar Heri and came back. Thereafter, according to her, nobody came to take her back. She has further stated that on 6.2.1982 she alongwith her father, maternal uncle and others came to Sangrur to leave her there. But her father-in-law and mother-in-law locked all the rooms except her room and went to village Bhullar Heri. Thereafter, in the same evening she also came back to her parental home at Bhullar Heri alongwith her brother. He pointed out that she has complained that the petitioner did not attend her brother’s marriage which took place on 14.2.1982, but in the cross-examination she had to admit that a day before this marriage, her brother went to invite the petitioner to attend the marriage. He went to Sangrur, but the petitioner was not there because in those days he was posted at Maler Kotla. The petitioner has testified on oath that he was never informed of the marriage of his brother-in-law. Thereafter, she never came back to the matrimonial home though she and her witnesses have stated that they took out Panchayats in May, 1982 and thereafter also, but the petitioner declined to rehabilitate her.
8. The appellant’s learned Counsel has relied on Balbir Kaur v. Dhir Dass, 1979 (81) PLR 113, Smt. Savita Chadha v. Ravinder Singh Chadha, 1987-2 (92) PLR 509 and Rajinder Singh Joon v. Smt. Tara Wati, 1980 (82) PLR 157. Respondent’s Counsel did not turn up for arguments.
9. In Smt. Tara Wati’s case divorce was granted on the ground of cruelty because when the husband was seriously ill and was admitted in the Military Hospital the wife never cared to see her husband. In Smt. Savita Chadha’s case (supra) on the very first nuptial night the wife addressed her husband as brother. Thereafter, her brother and father lodged false complaints against her husband. On these facts, it was held that living of the husband with the wife would endanger his mental peace and honour and thus on the ground of cruelty divorce was granted. In Balbir Kaur’s case, it is held that cruelty in matrimonial disputes does not merely convey the idea of physical harm, but it admits in its ambit and scope such acts which might cause mental agony to the aggrieved party. It will depend upon the status of the parties, the customs and traditions by which they are governed as also the public opinion which prevails in the locality. It is also observed that cumulatively if the effect of various circumstances constitutes cruelty, the aggrieved party is entitled to obtain a decree of divorce on that ground.
10. In this case it appears that after completing her B.A. and doing her diploma course the wife was not submissive and obedient to her husband. Husband is a Head Constable in Police Department. It cannot be expected that he would tolerate such rebuff from his wife. So naturally, there was misunderstanding and intolerance between the two. Secondly, she could not given birth to any child. That further aggravated the situation. It is also true that she could not prove by any convincing evidence that she was beaten by the petitioner and was turned out of the house. Admittedly, since February, 1980 they are living separately. Both the parties have tried to prove that thereafter they made several attempts and took Panchayats also to rehabilitate, but every effort proved abortive. The petitioner filed this petition on 21.2.1985 which by itself proves that he waited for 5 years for reconciliation. But when all attempts failed, he filed this petition for divorce. The respondent-wife has admitted that till she was living at Sangrur with the petitioner, she was treated well. But when he was transferred to Sherpur, his behaviour became rude towards her. She has not given any details of such rude acts of the petitioner-husband. Living apart and depriving husband of co-habitation is also an act of cruelty. She has not proved any reasonable ground of living separately. If he has treated her well at Sangrur, then what happened at Sherpur. Why all of a sudden his behaviour became rude towards her is not obvious. Thus, it seems that the wife has treated her husband with cruelty. She has deserted him without any reasonable or plausible excuse. She has failed to adduce any cogent evidence that she was beaten by her husband and was turned out of the house. Rather she had to admit that she was left at her parental home by her husband. Both the parties have examined certain independent witnesses to prove that they convened Panchayats also for rehabilitation, but all efforts failed.
11. Thus from the parties evidence on record, it becomes evident that now it is not possible for them to live in peace and harmony under the same roof, though both have stated on oath that they want to live together. The wife is even ready to apologise if at all her husband feels aggrieved by her conduct, but still they are not able to reunite. That further shows that the said offer of living together is just a ritual. It lacks bona fides. From their sworn testimony, it is evident that their joint living has become impossible. But on the basis of evidence on record, the petitioner-husband is not entitled to a decree of divorce. Under these circumstances, considering the status, educational qualifications, and public opinion prevailing in both the families of the parties, in my opinion, it would be proper to grant a decree for judicial separation under Section 13-A of the Act.
12. Consequently, appeal is hereby partly allowed, Trial Court’s judgment and decree are set aside and instead decree for judicial separation under Section 13-A of the Act is hereby passed in appellant petitioner’s favour. No order as to costs.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment