Back
1965 Supreme(Del) 62
High Court Of Delhi
GULSHAN KUMARI - Appellant
Versus
KAILASH KUMAR VOHRA - Respondent
First Appeal Order 136D(M) of 1964
Decided On : 08/23/1965
N.R.Suri, R.L.Anand
Cruelty, as a ground for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, may be established by a single act of violence, depending on the circumstances and severity of the act.
Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 9 - RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - INTERPRETATION - TRUTH OF STATEMENTS IN PETITION - EVIDENCE - CRUELTY - DEFINITION - SINGLE ACT OF VIOLENCE - REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF HARM - DISCRETION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that his wife had withdrawn from his society without any reasonable cause. The wife contested the petition, alleging cruelty by the husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife had been subjected to persistent maltreatment and violence by the husband, causing a reasonable apprehension of harm to her if she continued to live with him. The court held that the husband's acts constituted cruelty within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the truth of all statements made in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights must be established for the petition to succeed. 2. Whether a single act of violence can constitute cruelty justifying restitution of conjugal rights. 3. Whether the court has the discretion to decline a petition for restitution of conjugal rights after a prolonged separation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the emphasis in Section 9 of the Act is on the satisfaction of the court about the truth of the statements made in the petition, not on the truth of all the statements. 2. The court held that a single act of violence may constitute cruelty justifying restitution of conjugal rights, depending on the circumstances and severity of the act. 3. The court did not decide the issue of the court's discretion to decline a petition for restitution of conjugal rights after a prolonged separation, as it was not necessary in the present case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the wife's appeal and dismissed the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
( 1 ) THE present appeal arises out of an application filed by Kailash Kumar Vohra, husband of the appellant, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The application was based on the ground that Gulshan Kumari, the wife, had withdrawn from the petitioner-respondent s society since 8-4-1958 without any reasonable or justifiable cause. The trial Court allowed the petition and passed a decree in favour of the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Aggrieved by the said order the wife has come up in appeal.
( 2 ) HAVING regard to the contentions raised at the bar, which shall be discussed hereafter, it is necessary to briefly refer to the pledings of the parties. In the petition it is inter alia stated that.
(A) "the marriage was solemnised between the parties on 17th February, 1957, at Delhi and the parties resided together as husband and wife for abont a year in Kishan Ganj, Delhi, and thereafter in Viney Nagar, New Delhi.
(B) A son was born to them out of the wedlock.
(C) The wife had without reasonable excuse withdrawn from the society of the husband with effect from 8th April 1958.
(D) The wife was again in the family way about the end of March, 1958, when her mother came and requested the parents of the petitioner to send her to her parents house for a short while to which the petitioner s parents consented.
(E) Before she was taken away by her mother on 8th April, 1958, she had asked the petitioner to provide her with Rs. 300. 00 to be paid to her parents to enable them to buy gifts to be presented to him in connect ion with some ceremony. He, however, expressed inability to provide the money.
(F) The petitioner s mother went to fetch Gulshan Kumari but her mother refused to send her back. Thereafter he himself went to bring her but she declined to come on the ground that her parents would not send her back till he provided a sum of Rs. 300. 00 for the purpose mentioned earlier ; and
(G) various efforts on the part of the petitioner and his parents to bring her back proved abortive and even the letters written by him and his father evoked no response.
( 3 ) THE defence of the wife (hereafter REFERRED TO to as the appellant as set out in her written-statement inter aha was that-
(A) She was forced to leave the company of her husband because of his treatment of extreme cruelty towards her.
(B) Her father gave suitable dowry at the time of marriage but every now and then the husband (hereafter REFERRED TO to as the respondent) used to coerce her for demanding more money from her parents.
(C) The respondent used to give her severe beating, abuse her and at times turn her out of the house and it was under those forced circumstances that she left his house. He had, as a matter of fact, told her not to return.
(D) It was in the above-said circumstances that the appellant s father had, at his own expense, sent her to Manav Bharti School. Her father paid Rs. 300. 00 as training fee besides admission and other fees. The entire expenses for completing the training course In the said school were also borne by her father. The respondent or his father never offered any assistance.
(E) The appellant never became pregnant second time as alleged in the petition ; and
(F) the story about the demand of Rs. 300. 00 was incorrect and that excepting letter of November 1958 she did not receive any other letter from the respondent.
( 4 ) THE respondent produced witnesses from the two localities where the parties lived together, namely, Kishan Ganj and Viney Nagar. These vitness, namely, Chandan Singh (P. W. 1), S. N. Seth (P. W. 7), A. K. Gupta (P. W. 2), Ram Chander (P. W. 3) and Vishnu Dutt Sharma (P. W. 6) deposed that they never noticed any quarrel between the parties. Ram Akshawar Shukla (P. W. 4) produced two advertisements exhibits P. I and P. 2 published in Hindustan Times showing that admission in the Manav Bharti School closed on 31-3-1958. This witness appears to have been produc
