Back
1968 Supreme(P&H) 45
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.S.Sarkaria, J.
Sadhu Singh Balwant Singh
Versus
Jagdish Kaur Sadhu Singh
First Appeal First Order No. 83 of 1966,
Civil MISCELLANEOUS No. 3086 of 1967,
Decided On : MARCH 28, 1968
The court held that a wife has a reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of her husband if she is subjected to mental cruelty by her husband or his family members.
Headnote:
RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM SOCIETY OF PETITIONER - LETTERS BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THIRD PARTY - CONSTRUCTION - MENTAL CRUELTY - INTENTION TO RESUME COHABITATION - ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent-wife. The parties were married in 1964 and lived together briefly before the wife left the matrimonial home in August 1964. The husband alleged that the wife had withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuse and had taken away her ornaments and clothes. The wife, on the other hand, claimed that she was subjected to obnoxious, intolerable, and inhuman treatment by her in-laws at Rupar and was forced to leave the matrimonial home.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the husband's petition, finding that the wife had not withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuse. The court found that the husband was guilty of blameworthy conduct, including making false allegations against the wife and showing aversion towards her. The court also found that the wife's allegations of ill-treatment by her in-laws were credible and that she had a reasonable excuse for leaving the matrimonial home.
Issues: 1. Whether the wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without reasonable excuse. 2. Whether the husband had made the petition with an ulterior motive, such as laying the foundation for a future petition for divorce. 3. Whether the husband had been guilty of mental cruelty towards the wife.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the wife had not withdrawn from the society of the husband without reasonable excuse. The court found that the husband had failed to prove that the wife had left the matrimonial home without a reasonable excuse. The court also found that the wife's allegations of ill-treatment by her in-laws were credible and that she had a reasonable excuse for leaving the matrimonial home. 2. The court held that the husband had made the petition with an ulterior motive, such as laying the foundation for a future petition for divorce. The court found that the husband had failed to prove that he sincerely wanted to resume cohabitation with the wife. The court also found that the husband's conduct, including making false allegations against the wife and showing aversion towards her, indicated that he did not want to resume cohabitation. 3. The court held that the husband had been guilty of mental cruelty towards the wife. The court found that the husband's conduct, including making false allegations against the wife and showing aversion towards her, amounted to mental cruelty.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
, J.
1. This appeal by the husband is directed against an order, dated 16.8.1966. of Shri Radha Krishan Battas, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Rupar, by which the appellants petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife, was dismissed.
2. The appellant was married to the respondent on 29.3.1964. He is serving as a Physical Education Supervisor in a school under the control of the Fertilizer Corporation of India at Naya Nangal, Respondent Jagdish Kaur is the daughter of Dr. Ajmer Singh of Ludhiana. She was at all material times employed and posted as teachress in Government Middle posted as teachress in Government Middle School, Ludhiana. After the marriage, the parties went for a honeymoon tour to Simla, where they lived together for about 7 days. Thereafter, the couple went to the house of Dr. Ajmer Singh at Ludhiana. The respondents mother however, advised them to go to Rupar, which they did on 7.4.1964. Thereafter the spouses went to their respective places of posting at Ludhiana and Nangal.
3. In the summer vacations of July-August, 1964, the wife came to her husbands house on 10.8.1964, and stayed with his parents at Rupar. The petitioner alleges that on 28.8.1964, she left the matrimonial home in his absence and had withdrawn herself from his society without reasonable excuse. It is also pleaded that she took along with her ornaments and clothes, valued at Rs.4,000/-.
4. On the preceding facts, the husband on 10.5.1965, made a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, at Rupar.
5. In her written statement, the wife pleaded that she was given obnoxious, intolerable and inhuman treatment by her in-laws at Rupar. She was turned out of the petitioners house on 28.8.1964, and was forcibly relieved of her ornaments and belongings. Her mother-in-law opposed the very idea of her going to Nangal to live with the petitioner. She was segregated from her husband and made to spend her holidays in Rupar without his company. The petitioner was too much under the influence of his parents and had no voice of his own. It is also stated that the petitioners parents were dissatified with the dowry given by her parents, and, therefore, taunted and teased her. She also expressed her willingness to live with the petitioner at Nangal, but not with his parents at Rupar as she apprehended danger to her life.
6. In the replication, the petitioner alleged that he did not like his wife to serve as a mistress in a school. His mother also did not want the petitioner to continue in school service. It was denied that the dowry was ever a consideration for this marriage. It was added:-
"In fact, the respondent took this marriage just as a cover to get latitude to enjoy life in a different way other than the normal married life. She, in fact, is an instrument to be used by Mrs. Daljit Kaur Thandi, her previous Headmistress, Ludhiana. The correspondence between them is a clear proof of the fact that respondent does not want to lead the normal life of a married woman. ............... The respondent is living away from the petitioner out of her own pleasure. Still the petitioner is desirous of enjoying her company."
7. The allegations of ill-treatment of the respondent were also denied. By way of additional plea, it was stated that the petitioner being the only son of his aged parents, was duty-bound to look after them, and the respondent had to share that moral obligation and responsibility of the petitioner. It was denied that there was any danger to the respondent from the parents of the petitioner.
8. The trial Court framed this issue:-
"Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without a reasonable excuse. O. A."
9. This issue was decided against the petitioner. The trial Judge found that the petitioner himself was guilty of blame-worthy conduct because what he
