SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(P&H) 1434

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
Balbir Kaur
Versus
Daljit Singh
First Appeal from the Order No. 68 of 1994,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 18, 1996

Cruelty, desertion, and delay in filing a petition for divorce are grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Headnote:

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - SECTION 13 - CRUELTY - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - MENTAL AND PHYSICAL CRUELTY - DESERTION - DELAY IN FILING PETITION - EXPLANATION - COURT'S DISCRETION - IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE.

Fact of the Case:

Wife appeals against the grant of divorce to her husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. She argues that the husband's evidence is unreliable, that she was not treated with cruelty, and that the delay in filing the petition should have led to its dismissal.

Finding of the Court:

The court finds that the husband has proved that the wife treated him with cruelty by insulting and abusing him, insisting that he live separately from his mother and sister, leaving the minor daughters in his care while he was out on duty, calling him to the police station and getting him detained, and forcing him to agree to terms dictated by her and her relations. The court also finds that the wife deserted the husband without any reasonable cause and that the delay in filing the petition was explained by the husband's attempts to reconcile with the wife.

Issues: 1. Whether the husband has proved that the wife treated him with cruelty. 2. Whether the wife deserted the husband without any reasonable cause. 3. Whether the delay in filing the petition should have led to its dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Cruelty is not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act and there is no straight-jacket formula to define/assess cruelty. It depends upon education, standard of living, status of parties in society and their mental make up. 2. Desertion is a willful and unjustified abandonment of one spouse by the other without any reasonable cause. 3. Under Section 23(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a petition for divorce may be dismissed if there has been unreasonable delay in filing the petition and the delay is not explained. However, the court has the discretion to condone the delay if it is satisfied that there is a sufficient explanation for the delay.

Final Decision: The court dismisses the appeal and upholds the grant of divorce to the husband.

Judgment

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Appellant-wife has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) against the judgment and decree of the matrimonial Court dated 24.2.1994 whereby petition for dissolution of marriage filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent is accepted.

2. Uncontroverted facts of the case are that the parties were married according to Sikh rites by way of Anand Karaj on 31.1.1979 at Khadoor Sahib, Amritsar. In this wed-lock the appellant-wife has given birth two daughters, namely, Rupinder Kaur and Raswinder Kaur. Parties are living separately since 28.7.1989. Respondent-husbands case was that the marriage between the parties was solemnised simply. No dowry was given or taken. Right from the inception of the marriage, appellant wifes conduct was very harsh and cruel towards him. She had no love and affection for the petitioner and his family members. She used to abuse and insult him in the presence of his relations and friends. She used to say that she will not reside with his mother and sister at village Naushera Panuan. She does not want to serve her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. She insisted that he should reside at Amritsar, but the husband could not accede to her wish as his father has died and there was no other member to look after his mother and unmarried sister. According to him, wife was of nagging and petulant type. She used to go to her parental home without obtaining his consent. On 28.7.1989 she left her matrimonial home without any excuse and took away all her valuable clothes and jewellery. She also carried the eldest daughter with her. On 30.7.1989 he went to her parental home to bring her back. Initially, she agreed, came with him upto the Bus Stand, but there she declined and left the eldest daughter with the respondent-husband. At that time also, she abused and insulted him. on 1.8.1991 he went along with Tara Singh, Lambardar, to her parental home, but again he was insulted by her and by her brother and father, who threw his turban and gave him kicks and fist blows. On 4.8.1991 again he convened a panchayat of the respectables, a compromise was effected, but wife again backed out. Thereafter, once he was detained by Sarhali police at the instance of local persons w.e.f. 9.3.1992 to 13.3.1992, again a panchayat was convened and it was settled that on 15.2.1992 a compromise would be effected between the parties, but again wife backed out, husband was threatened through terrorists. Thus, alleging that wife has treated him with cruelty, he prayed for a decree of divorce.

3. Appellant-wife denied all these allegations and pleaded that as in this wed-lock, she could not give birth to a son, husband used to beat her. She was turned out of her matrimonial home on this count alone. Thus, her minor children were deprived of her motherly love and affection. In her marriage sufficient dowry articles were given. Husband used to beat her under the influence of liquor. Tara Singh, Lambardar, is instigating the husband to get rid of appellant wife so that he may perform second marriage and thereby he may be blessed with son. After being maltreated, she was turned out of the matrimonial home in the last week of July, 1991. Thereafter, her father convened a panchayat in November, 1991. Husband agreed to rehabilitate her. She remained with the husband for two months, but again she was severely beaten and was turned out of the nuptial roof. She denied all other allegations of cruelty and desertion in the petition. She also objected that the husband has filed this divorce petition with a view to remarry.

4. The matrimonial court framed issues. Respondent-husband examined Tara Singh PW-1, Mann Singh PW-2, Rupinder Kaur PW-3 and himself as PW-4. Wife examined Sajjan Singh RW-1, Harjinder Singh RW-2, Natha Singh RW-3, Pal Singh RW-4 and herself as RW-5.

5. Lower Court scanned the parties evidence minutely and arrived at the conclusion that wife has tre
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top