Back
2001 Supreme(P&H) 466
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Smt. Seema - Appellant
Versus
Surender Kumar - Respondent
F.A.O. No. 90-M of 1999.
Decided On : 26 April, 2001
For the Appellant :Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the behavior of the wife towards the husband and his family members constituted cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, leading to the dissolution of the marriage.
Headnote:
Cruelty - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - The court found that the wife's behavior towards the husband and his family members was cruel, rude, and indifferent, leading to the dissolution of the marriage. The court also found that the wife had deserted the husband without sufficient cause. The petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed based on the findings of cruelty and desertion.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that the wife's behavior towards him and his family members was cruel, rude, and indifferent. He also claimed that the wife had deserted him without sufficient cause. The wife denied the allegations and stated that she was harassed and tortured by the husband and his family members for not bringing enough dowry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the husband, holding that the wife's behavior constituted cruelty and that she had deserted the husband without sufficient cause. The court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the petition under Section 13 of the Act.
Issues: The issues included whether the respondent was guilty of acts of cruelty, whether the respondent deserted the petitioner without sufficient cause, whether the petition was barred by the principle of res judicata, whether the petitioner misrepresented the facts, and whether the court had jurisdiction. The court decided in favor of the husband on issues 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the wife's behavior towards the husband and his family members constituted cruelty, and that she had deserted the husband without sufficient cause. The court also held that the evidence was unsatisfactory on issues 1 and 2, and reversed the trial court's findings on these issues.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and dismissed the petition under Section 13 of the Act with no order as to costs.
R.L. Anand, J. - Smt. Seema (wife) who was respondent in the trial Court, has filed the present F.A.O. and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.3.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who allowed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act) of Surender Kumar (now respondent before me), who was petitioner in the trial Court, vide which the marriage of the parties was dissolved by the trial Court. Not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the wife has come in the present appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Surender Kumar respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act and it was inter alia pleaded by him that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.1.1992 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Gurgaon. After the marriage, the parties lived as husband and wife and cohabited with each other. However, no child was born out of this wedlock. It is alleged by the husband that right from the very beginning of the marriage, the behaviour of the wife towards him and his family member was cruel, rude and indifferent without any rhyme or reason as she used to insult him by using filthy language in the presence of his relatives. She is a lady of high temperament. Elaborating the incident of cruelty it is alleged by the husband at the first instance that on 30.1.1992 some of his friends came to his house and the appellant was asked to serve tea to them, but she told that she was not their servant. After a week, when his sister came to their house, the appellant called her as bitch etc. and hurled filthy language. The second incident of cruelty alleged by the husband is that on 8.2.1992 when he went to attend a marriage at Gurgaon of some relative of the appellant some eatable fell on his clothes, due to which the appellant started hurling abuses by stating that he did not care about her status. Though he tried to pacify her but to no effect. Thereafter, he left the marriage party and returned to his house. On the next day, the appellant along with her father came to his house and assured that no such act would be repeated in future. The third incident of cruelty is dated 19.3.1992. According to the husband-respondent it was Holi festival, so he applied some Gulal on the face of the appellant but she did not relish it and called him Kutta and Kamina (dog and mean person). She also gave a slap on his face in the presence of several persons. These are the three incidents of cruelty pleaded by the husband.
3. It has been further pleaded by the husband while making out a ground of desertion that on 22.3.1992, the appellant left her matrimonial house with all her belongings including gold and silver ornaments, a cash amount of Rs. 4,000/- and other valuable clothes and since then she did not come to her matrimonial house. On this he along with his relatives went to the house of the father of the appellant, but she did not return to her matrimonial house. Rather, the appellant misbehaved with him and other respectables. The last panchayat was convened on his part on 25.8.1992 in which the appellant flatly refused to live with the respondent.
4. Notice of the petition was given to the wife, who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. She took certain preliminary objections that the petition under Section 13 of the Act was not maintainable, that the husband has suppressed material facts; that he was estopped from filing the present petition which is not legally maintainable. On merits, the stand of the appellant-wife was that she never insulted the respondent and his family members and that she never used abusive language. She never showed any disrespect to the respondent and his family members. On the other hand, without any fault on her part she was assaulted by the respondent and his family members physically and she was also deprived of her ornaments and belongings because all the dowry art
