FAO-3710-2017 (OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3710-2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: 30.5.2017
Joginder Singh
….Appellant.
Versus
Gurpinder Kaur
…Respondent.
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU.
PRESENT: Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for the appellant.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. Delay of 13 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
2. This appeal has been filed by the husband against the judgment
and decree dated 15.12.2016 passed by the District Judge (Family Court),
Pathankot, whereby the petition filed by the wife under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act”) for dissolution of marriage
by a decree of divorce, was allowed.
3. Sans unessentials, the facts necessary for adjudication of the
present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The respondent-wife
(hereinafter described as ‘ the respondent’) filed a divorce petition, inter
alia, pleading that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 18.5.2005
at village Checha, Tehsil and District Amritsar according to Sikh rites.
After the marriage, both the parties resided together as husband and wife at
village Allowal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur for one year only. However,
no child was born from the said wedlock. The appellant-husband
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) was a quarrelsome, rude, ill
mannered and had made the life of the respondent a living hell. He had
1 of 6
09-06-2017 22:33:16 :::
FAO-3710-2017 (OM) -2-
been threatening her to have illicit relationship with other persons. The
appellant on a number of occasions pressurized the respondent to meet the
demands of money. The appellant used to beat her and forcibly got her
aborted thrice against her wishes. She was subjected to slow poisoning with
an intention to kill her. On 10.6.2006, when the appellant came home, he
beat the respondent with ‘Lathi’ and threw the household articles and clothes
all around in the room. When she told this to her in-laws, the appellant
turned her out from the matrimonial home. The relatives of the respondent
tried to compromise with the appellant but he refused to do so. Her father
was habitual drunkard and forcibly married his daughter with the appellant
who is 25 years elder to the respondent. Even the children from the first
marriage of the appellant were of the same age of the respondent. The
respondent is a Clerk in the Government Senior Secondary School, Dhar
Kalan and from the outside of the school, the appellant along with 3-4
unknown persons attempted twice to kidnap the respondent. She filed a
complaint in this regard with the Police Station Dhar Kalan, but no action
was taken thereon. The respondent earlier filed a similar petition under
Section 13 of the Act which was dismissed in default vide order dated
21.8.2013. Through the instant petition, she prayed for a decree of divorce
by dissolution of marriage. Upon notice, the appellant-husband contested
the divorce petition by filing a written statement. Besides raising various
preliminary objections, it was pleaded that earlier the respondent-wife had
filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act which was dismissed in default
and the same had not been restored till date and, therefore, the second
divorce petition was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the
appellant used to give respect to the respondent and her family members and
2 of 6
09-06-2017 22:33:17 :::
FAO-3710-2017 (OM) -3-
remained helpful in the problems of her parents and had also given
economic help to them. In the year 2006 when the respondent got the
Government job in the Education Department, she started quarrelling with
the appellant on trifles who made his best efforts to reconcile amicably but
in January, 2009, the respondent left her matrimonial home without any
reasonable cause and since then she was residing at the place of her posting.
The appellant had never demanded any dowry from the respondent and he
still wanted her company. The other averments made in the petition were
denied and a prayer for dismissal of the petition was made. From the
pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with
cruelty, mental as well as physical? OPP
2. Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner
without sufficient cause? OPP
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of
marriage by way of decree of divorce? OPP
4. Relief.
4. The respondent in support of her case, examined herself as
PW1 and tendered her affidavit Ex.PW1/A. On the other hand, the
appellant appeared himself as RW1 and examined his maternal uncle
Darshan Singh as RW2. Both the witnesses had also tendered their
respective affidavits Ex.RW1/A and Ex.RW2/A.
5. The trial court on appreciation of evidence led by the parties
held that the respondent was subjected to mental as well as physical cruelty
and wilfully deserted by the appellant and, therefore, she was entitled to a
decree of divorce from her husband on that ground. Accordingly, the trial
3 of 6
09-06-2017 22:33:17 :::
FAO-3710-2017 (OM) -4-
court vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2016 allowed the divorce
petition and dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of
divorce. Hence, the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court
had wrongly allowed the divorce petition as the appellant never treated the
wife with cruelty and false allegations were levelled by the respondent-wife.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find
any merit in the appeal.
8. Admittedly, the marriage of the appellant with the respondent
was his second marriage. As per the statement of the appellant, he had
grown up children and his elder daughter was married. The respondent in
her affidavit Ex.PW1/A had specifically stated that there was age gap of 25
years between her and the appellant. During her cross-examination, the
respondent had stated that the father of the appellant wanted her to live with
the appellant. Since the appellant was giving economic help to the parents
of the respondent, therefore, her father was asking to join the company of
the appellant. Further, marrying a daughter with a person who is 25 years
older to her against her wishes was itself cruelty to the daughter.
Considering the allegations levelled by the respondent against the appellant
that she was giving beatings, amounted to mental as well as physical
cruelty. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence produced on record had
rightly concluded that the wife was being treated by the husband with
cruelty with the following observations:-
“11. Thus, evidence on record reveals that the marriage
of respondent with petitioner is his second marriage. He
has already grown up children. As per statement of
4 of 6
09-06-2017 22:33:17 :::
FAO-3710-2017 (OM) -5-
respondent his elder daughter is married. His son is
about 25 years and his younger son is 22 years age. The
petitioner in her affidavit specifically stated that there is
age gap of 25 years between her and respondent. It has
also come on record during the cross-examination of
petitioner that father of the respondent wants the
petitioner to live with the respondent. Respondent also
stated in his affidavit RW1/A that he used to help the
parents of petitioner economically. This means that since
the respondent was rendering economic help to father of
the petitioner, the father of the petitioner was asking her
to join the company of respondent. Marrying a daughter
with a person who is 25 years elder to her is itself cruelty
to the daughter. It seems that because of economic
hardship, father of the petitioner marries her off to the
respondent. There can hardly be mental as well as
physical compatibility between the couple when the age
gap is 25 years. The age gap of 25 years because all the
more aggravating, considering the allegations leveled by
the petitioner against the respondent that she was given
physical beatings by the respondent quite often. Giving
the wife to beatings amounts to mental as well as
physical cruelty.”
9. In so far as ground of desertion is concerned, the respondent
deposed that she was turned out of her matrimonial home on 10.6.2006.
She further stated that when the appellant came home, he beat the
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 09-06-2017 22:33:17 :::
FAO-3710-2017 (OM) -6-
respondent with ‘lathi’ and behaved in a strange manner, throwing
household articles and clothes all around in the room. The trial Court had
correctly recorded that the sole testimony of the respondent was enough to
prove the unusual behaviour of the appellant as she can explain what
happened to her within the four walls of the house or what happened inside
the bedroom. From the evidence on record, the trial Court further noticed
that it was proved that the appellant deserted the respondent before she took
the job and long desertion was enough to pass a decree of divorce in favour
of the respondent especially when the appellant failed to prove that how
many times he made efforts for reconciliation.
10. The findings recorded by the trial court have not been shown to
be erroneous or perverse in any manner being based on misappreciation or
misreading of evidence on record which may warrant interference by this
Court. Consequently, finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is
hereby dismissed.
11. There is a delay of 60 days in filing the appeal. CM-12148-
CII-2017 has been filed for condonation of 60 days’ delay in filing the
appeal. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no further orders are
required to be passed in the application for condonation of delay in filing
the appeal and the same is disposed of as such.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
May 30, 2017 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
gbs JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
6 of 6
09-06-2017 22:33:17 :::