Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M.M.S. BEDI, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, JJ.
Santosh Rani - Appellant
Versus
Dilbag Singh - Respondent
FAO-M-68 of 2016
Decided On : 01-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. L.S. Sidhu
For the Respondent: Mr. Piyush Sharma
Fair appreciation of evidence is crucial in cases of cruelty and desertion, and the intention to desert must be established for a finding of desertion to be sustainable.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13-B, Section 13 - Section 498-A IPC - Cruelty - Desertion
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-wife was accused of treating the respondent-husband with cruelty and deserting him, leading to the grant of divorce in favor of the respondent-husband. The appellant-wife denied the allegations and accused the respondent-husband of keeping a concubine and subjecting her to cruelty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court had wrongly appreciated the evidence and reversed the findings on cruelty and desertion. The appeal was allowed, and the divorce decree granted to the respondent-husband was set aside. The court also directed the appellant-wife to recover the arrears of interim maintenance through the competent court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of cruelty and desertion by the appellant-wife and the subsequent grant of divorce to the respondent-husband.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fair appreciation of evidence in cases of cruelty and desertion. It highlighted the importance of establishing the intention to desert and the circumstances leading to the spouse staying away from the matrimonial home.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the divorce decree was set aside, and the petition for divorce by the respondent-husband was dismissed. The appellant-wife was directed to recover the arrears of interim maintenance through the competent court at Ferozepur.
M.M.S. Bedi, J.
Counsel for the respondent-husband submits that he has made his level best to contact the respondent-husband but he has got no instructions.
2. In view of said circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondent-husband is adopting an evasive approach to avoid the payment of the arrears of maintenance pendente lite which have accrued to more than sum of Rs.1 lakh.
3. The defence of the respondent-husband in this appeal is struck off.
4. We have considered the appeal on merits.
5. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 05.01.2016, the petition for divorce filed by the respondent-husband was allowed on the ground that the appellant-wife had treated the respondent-husband with cruelty and that she had deserted the respondent-husband for a period exceeding two years immediately prior to the institution of the petition.
6. As per the averments in the petition, the parties had married in the year 2000. A child was born out of the wedlock who is in the custody of the appellant-wife. It is averred in the petition for divorce that the appellant-wife treated the respondent-husband with physical and mental cruelty and was never ready to hear any proper advice from the respondent-husband or his parents and her attitude was rough and arrogant. She used to pick up quarrels with the respondent-husband and his family members on false pretexts. However, the respondent-husband had showered love and affection on the appellant-wife but she always misbehaved with the parents of the respondent-husband. As per the allegations, she had left the matrimonial house in the year 2002. The respondent-husband tried to contact her on telephone but she refused to return back. She had lodged a case for cruelty against the respondent-husband and his family members in which the father and mother of the respondent were acquitted and the respondent was convicted for offence under Section 498-A IPC. With the intervention of the panchayat, the parties filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant-wife had received a sum of Rs.50,000/- at first motion but at the time of final stage she resiled and did not receive sum of Rs.40,000/-. She did not appear in the Court as such the case was adjourned to 11.08.2014. She did not appear on said date as such the case was adjourned for 22.08.2014. On the said date, the appellant-wife did not appear but the respondent-husband was present in the Court along with remaining amount. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 01.09.2014. Petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.09.2014 with liberty to the respondent-husband to exercise his right to seek dissolution of marriage by instituting petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
7. The appellant-wife filed written statement taking up the plea that the respondent-husband had kept a concubine, namely, Parkash Kaur, daughter of Kashmir Singh, resident of village Chapati and for that reason, he was seeking divorce. The respondent-husband along with his parents had been subjecting the appellant-wife with cruelty and turned her out of the matrimonial house after 12 months of the marriage when she was on the family way. No maintenance was being paid to her and the minor child for the last 12 years. However, a meager amount of Rs.500/- per month as maintenance ordered in the year 2004 was being paid to her. Serious allegations had been levelled by the appellant-wife in the written statement that dowry articles given in the marriage have been misappropriated by the respondent-husband and his family members. She has denied that she ever misbehaved with the respondent and his family members. The FIR was lodged on the basis of true facts but cancellation report was filed by the police under political influence of the respondent. The respondent-husband was convicted under Section 498-A IPC. However, the father and mother of the respondent were acquitted. It was claimed in the reply by t
