Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishna Rani
vs
Chuni Lal Gulati on 4 August, 1980
Equivalent citations: AIR 1981 P H 119
Bench: D Tewatia
JUDGMENT
1. The integrate yet married as distant behind as on 10th June, 1959 and sanctified with 3 children, appears not to have been means to make a success of it. It was a appellant-wife Shmt. Krishna Rani (hereinafter referred to as a postulant wife), who had in a initial instance taken out divorce record in March, 1978 that came to be liberated on 1st Sept., 1978 in default. It is there after Chuni Lal., father (hereinafter referred to as a respondent-husband) who took adult a beginning by filing a benefaction petition of 15th Nov., 1978 underneath S. 13 of a Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on a belligerent of cruelty. It was purported in a petition that a mom has been of a whinging form constantly scornful him even in a participation of his friends, she had been neglecting a children for whom she would not prepared dish in time, would frequently bear them and contend an atmosphere in a residence that was constantly surcharged with tension; that she was obstinate to a border that she would leave a residence and sojourn divided for days though his permission. By approach of illustration, it was mentioned that in Nov. 1977, she went divided to Haridwar though his accede and returned to a residence after a week, giving an instance of scornful function it was mentioned that on 18th Jan., 1978. his friends Om Prakash Chadha and Dr. Sanjay Sachdev visited his house. She declined to prepared tea for them, combined a theatre by violence a children with a outcome a guest left a hose though holding tea, as a outcome he felt severely insulted.
But what valid to be a self-evident “last straw” was an indictment opposite a father of carrying unlawful family with Shmt. Parmeshwari, mom of his elder hermit finished in news Ex P-1 that she had lodged opposite a father on 6th Feb., 1978. On a basement of a pronounced report, a father had been arrested and proceeded opposite underneath Ss. 107 and 151 of a Cr.P.C. The mom left a residence on that day returning usually to collect her cloths and trinket in a scarcity of a father and afterward has been staying away.
2. Wife, Shmt, Krishna Rani denied a claim per to a whinging and scornful function attributed to her. She has asserted that she had been dutifully cooking a dishes and looking after a children; that it was a father who during a instance of his mom had been maltreating her spasmodic and gave violence to her. His violence insincere critical fit on 6th Feb., 1978 that left her no choice though to board a news with a police. She purported that a father was a supporter of Nirankari Nirankaris with H2O that he finished her to drink, nonetheless she did not trust in Nirankari Faith. On her refusal to do so, she used to be given beating.
3. Chuni Lal, husband, appearing as his possess witness, deposed to a allegations mentioned in a petition saying that a opinion of a mom was intensely arrogant, scornful and non-co-operative. She had been scornful him before his friends; that she had been neglecting to prepared food for a children, that she many times and infrequently for days together would not prepared food for a family, would not prepared children for a school, funded maternal love from them, with a outcome that he used to get them prepared for a propagandize and used to prepared their dishes during such times. Om Prakash Chadha, P.W. 3, deposed to a fact that one day in Nov., 1977 he along with Dr. Sanjay Sechdev had visited a residence of a husband. She in their benefaction refused to prepared tea, started violence a children and they afterward left a residence though tea. Harish, P.W. 4 son of a parties modernized a chronicle given by Chuni Lal and Om Prakash Chadha. Dharam Singh, P.W. 5, who used to live in a residence in front of a residence of Chuni Lal, settled that whenever he visited a residence of Chuni Lal, he found that his mom would not pronounce to him. She used to repartee even on sparse domestic affairs; that once he visited a residence of Chuni Lal, he found that his mom was not benefaction and had left to Dehradun. He beheld Chuni Lal several times sauce adult a children for promulgation them to a school.
4. The schooled hearing Court supposed a chronicle of a father and postulated a direct of divorce.
5. On interest of mom Krishna Rani, a visualisation of a Matrimonial Court has been assailed on a belligerent that not scheming tea for a friends of a father once or her going divided to Haridar though his accede would not consecrate cruelty and that in any box these lapses had been condoned, Regarding indictment of unfaithful propinquity of a father with his elder brother’s wife, it has been contended that besides a testimony of a husband, there is no other accessible justification to infer a pronounced claim Regarding a military news Ex. P-1, a mount taken is that a pronounced news is unfit in justification as a same had not been duly valid in suitability with law and therefore, a hearing justice ought not to have taken a same in to consideration. In a alternative, it was contended that a claim contained in a news Ex. P-1 carrying not been steady by her justification a pronounced wandering claim in a military news in doubt would not consecrate cruelty of a kind envisaged in Section 13 of a Hindu Marriage Act. Regarding a record underneath Ss. 107/151 of Cr. P.C. opposite a father a position taken by a mom be transparent from a interrogate of Chuni Lal husband, is that he was liberated since a record had turn some-more than sic months old.
6. Respondent husband’s allegations that a mom had been arrogant, had been frequently scornful him, had been neglecting a children and would during times stay divided from a residence though his determine for days together and that she would insult a father in a participation of his friends, have been hold by a hearing court, and righteously in my opinion to be determined from a justification that is reasoning and unchanging and that carries a ring of law about it. The critique of a testimony of a son that he deposed on comment of being underneath a change of his father, in my opinion is totally unmerited. The answer that he had given in interrogate lends faith to a clarity that what he had oral in his examination-in-chief he did so out of a clarity of law and not due to vigour form any quarter.
7. The critique of a other witnesses of a respondent-husband on a measure of his loyalty with them, in a box like this, would not be of any avail, in that usually friends and near-ones alone would have some believe of inter se attribute of a father and a mom and a atmosphere of a family. Nothing else has been shown that might means any doubt about a trustworthiness of these witnesses.In a circumstances, a hearing justice has righteously placed faith on a same
8. On a other palm postulant wife’s rejection to a allegations in a petition in this courtesy rests on her possess ipse dixit. The dual witnesses that she had examined had zero to contend about her control towards her father and children. Girdhari Lal, R. W. 2, propinquity of postulant mom merely settled that when Krishan Rani, postulant mom visited Mullanpur, she had many injuries on her person. On enquiry she had told him that her father had given her a injuries; that 12 years behind also there was a argue between them and that he got a allotment effected. She is pronounced to have mentioned that her father wanted his Nirankari guest to be served and wanted her to press their legs to that she did not determine and a argue started since of that. Dr. Ashok Gupta R. W. 3, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh deposed to a fact that on 6th Feb., 1978, he had examined krishna Rani mom of Chuni Lal and found a contusion 2′ x 2′ in a parallel side of right forearm in a middle, a contusion 2′ x 2′ on a pastro parallel aspect of left forearm usually subsequent a contusion 1′ x 1′ usually subsequent a right eye, a tiny torn would of 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm on a center side of top mouth in a center extraneous break of we cm prolonged on a reduce lip, a contusion 2′ x 2′ over a scapula of left shoulder, complained of pain on a maiden wall of stomach left to center usually subsequent umbilicus with slight love benefaction over a area and structure 1′ x 2′ usually subsequent a left on a maiden aspect. In interrogate he approved that a injuries in doubt would have been perceived as a formula of a tumble from a stairs or as a outcome of a tumble from a cycle on a metalled road.
9. Besides her possess evidence, she has not examined any declare to contend that her poise towards respondent father was not scornful or conceited or that she had not been neglecting a children and that in fact she had been definitely polite towards her father and had been looking after a children good and that she did not leave a residence though her husband’s determine for Haridwar.
10. The schooled warn for a postulant mom argued that after she had returned from Haridwar where she had left though a determine of a father and after a occurrence of unpleasant poise towards a father when she refused to offer tea to a guests, she had been authorised to stay in a residence and continued to do so compartment 6th Feb., 1978. From this a Court contingency infer condonation of her acts and therefore, respondent father is not entitled to any relief. In support of his acquiescence he cited Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane AIR 1975 SC 1534.
11. The ratio of a preference relied on would be captivated in my opinion a box where a use is sought by pleading one sold instance that amounts to matrimonial offence. If a Court finds that after a elect of such a bungle by one associate a associate had forgiven him or her and had easy her to a strange position, afterwards that would volume to condonation of a act, so disentitling a annoyed associate in securing use from a matrimonial Court. But where a stability march of control on a partial of a spouse, that tantamounts to causing mental cruelty, is finished a basement of use sought from a matrimonial Court, afterwards no condonation can be pleaded since a successive and a latest act of cruelty would clean out a outcome of condonation of progressing acts of misconduct. Same would be a box where for instance one of a associate commits and adultery, and that act is condoned, if he or she again commits an act of adultery and a annoyed associate comes to a Court, a condonation of a progressing act would not disentitle a annoyed associate of a use for a latter act of bungle would clean out a outcome of progressing condonation. we had a arise to understanding with such a row is Amrik Singh v. Smt Surjit Kaur 1975 Cur LJ 360 and a regard finished therein are an good answer to a row modernized on interest of a postulant wife, that are reproduced below. :–
“In a inlet of things, conjunction it would be conductive for a married life nor it is conceivable that a impulse a associate commits an act that constitutes cruelty, a other associate rush to a justice for relief. A normal married integrate would naturally make stipend for disproportion of spirit and concede time in sequence to brace a marital propinquity and would so omit a contravention of a other associate in a wish that things would urge with a thoroughfare of time, where a mental cruelty is pronounced to time. Where a mental cruelty is pronounced to have been caused by consistent nagging, taunts, gestures full of disregard towards a other associate and towards those whom he or she possibly out of dutiful attribute or loyalty severely respects, it is usually when a bungle of a other associate does not uncover any pointer of alleviation and a theatre is reached where a final such taunt, whinging or gesticulate proves a self-evident ‘last straw’ and a associate throws adult a consume gives adult a hose that time would mend a matters and knocks during a doors of th Court.”
12. The latest act of cruelty on a partial of a postulant mom that has been complained opposite by a respondent husband, is that of indictment of carrying on unlawful attribute with his elder brother’s wife; that a respondents-husband forced her to take urine and night dirt and that a father after going to a toilet used to come loyal for holding his dishes though soaking his hands. These claim were finished in a news that she had lodged with a military (Ex. P-1) on 6th Feb., 1978 and on that really day she had left a matrimonial residence and had started posterior confidence record opposite a respondent father and also a divorce petition that she had filed opposite him and had never lived together thereafter. All this is highlighted to uncover that there had been no arise whatsoever for a condonation of her latest act of cruelty.
13. It has been urged on interest of a postulant mom that a news Ex. P-1 is unfit in justification and once this square of justification is ruled out on consideration, there would be no justification accessible on a record in support of any such allegation. Document Ex. P-1 is claimed to be unfit on a belligerent that it had not been duly valid in suitability with law, in that a clerk of a request has not bee examined not his signatures or a signatures of a petitioner-wife who is pronounced to have finished a pronounced report, have been proved. It has been forcefully contended that small muster of a request on a record would not make a request accessible if it had not been valid in suitability with law. Reliance has been placed on a following regard of Ray J. Made in Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, AIR 1971 SC 1865:–
“The plaintiffs wanted to rest on Exhibits A-12 and A -13, a day book and a bill respectively. The plaintiffs did not infer these books.There is no anxiety to these books in a judgment. The small selling of an exhibits does not allot with a explanation of documents.”
14. The aforesaid observations relied on on interest of a petitioner-wife were finished in a context and resources of that case. It was nobody’s box there that when a papers were exhibited no conflict to their admissibility had been raised. In fact in a latter partial of para. 15 in that a above quoted regard appear, it has been celebrated that a defendants had impeached a plaintiffs books of account. The fact that in a visualisation no anxiety was finished to those exhibits appears to uncover that admissibility of these papers had been objected to. Since somehow these papers occur to be exhibited on a record a plaintiffs sought to take advantage of that fact.
15. In fact where a request is authorised to be exhibited and placed on a record and no conflict is raided in a Court of initial instance, afterwards no conflict can be available to be lifted per a admissibility of such a request merely on a measure of mode of explanation thereof. The following observations of their Lordship of Privy Council finished in Padman v. Hanwants, AIR 1915 PC 111, can be quoted with advantage :–
“It was urged in a march of a justification that a purebred duplicate of a will of 1898 was approved in justification though sufficient substructure being laid for a admission. No objection, however, appears to have been taken in a initial appears to have been taken we a initial justice opposite a duplicate performed from a Registrar’s bureau being put in evidence. Had such conflict been finished during a time, a District Judge who attempted a box in a initial instance, would substantially have seen that a scarcity was supplied. Their Lordships consider that there is no piece in a benefaction contention.”
16. What is more, a request in doubt is an F. I. R. available by a military officer in a liberate of his central avocation and therefore, is a partial of a open record. Respondent father had placed on a record approved duplicate of a F. I.R. He had also examined P.W. 1 Madan Mohan deputy who had brought a strange record for a examination of a Court and had shown a same to a Court. Illustration(e) of S. 114 of a Indian Evidence Act that is in a following terms, permits a lifting of a hypothesis that a central acts had been frequently performed:–
“114(e) That legal and central acts have been frequently performed”
Section 79 of a Indian Evidence Act too permits a lifting of a hypothesis as to a genuineness of a approved copies. In perspective of this it would have to be taken that a military central who had available a F.I.R had finished so in a unchanging demeanour in due opening of his duty. Clause (e) of S. 65 of a Evidence Act, permits prolongation of delegate justification to infer a existence, condition or essence of an strange request if a same is a open request with in a definition of S. 74 of a Evidence Act. The delegate justification envisaged of such request is a approved copy. S. 77 of a Evidence act provides that approved copies can be constructed in explanation of a essence of a open papers of that they effect to be copies.
17. In Madamanchi Ramappa v. Mathaluru Bojjappa, AIR 1963 SC 1633, their Lordships have put a sign of management on a avowal that if a request is a approved duplicate of a open document, afterwards a same need not have been valid by job witness.
18. On interest of petitioner-wife, however, faith was placed on Hasta Ismail v. Emperor, AIR 1937 Lah 593 and Miyan Hasan Abdulla v. State of Gujarat, AIr 1962 Guj 214 for a discordant tender that where any essay of a military officer who had available a F. I.R. has not been valid in a demeanour supposing by S. 67 of a Evidence Act, a request would be unfit in justification to infer a law of a contribution mentioned in such document. The ratio of these preference is not captivated to a resources of a benefaction case. In those cases, a papers in fact were pulpy into use to settle a law of a avowal finished in a pronounced document. But where what is sought to be finished is usually to uncover that such and such claim form calm of a request and not that such claim were in fact loyal afterwards to infer a essence of a open request approved duplicate of such a request is enough. Nothing some-more is to be compulsory to make such a papers accessible in evidence.
19. For a reasons afore-mentioned, a row modernized on interest of a petitioner-wife that news Ex. P-1 is unfit in evidence, is repelled.
20. It has been subsequent argued on interest of a petitioner-wife that a unclothed indictment of a kind mentioned in Ex P-1 would not consecrate cruelty as envisaged in a applicable [portion of S. 13 of a Hindu Marriage Act.
21. That a indictment of unfaithful control constitutes cruelty of a form envisaged in S. 13 of a Act, is by now judicially good recognized. Reliance has been placed on Amrik Singh P.C. S v. Smt. Surjit Kaur, 1975 Cur LJ 360. Smt. Gayatri Devi Jain v. Dip Chand, 1977 Hindu LR 425 and Jiwan Lata v. Krishan Kumar, 1979 Hindu LR 599.
22. Their Lordships of a Supreme Court in Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Mrs. Sucheta Narayan Datane, 1975 Hindu LR 111: (AIR 1975 SC 1534) have hold inter alia that damage to repute is of critical care in last a doubt of cruelty. Their Lordships have also serve hold that wife’s resistant spirit of her holding pleasure in causing wretchedness to father and his relations, consistent ominous of a Peace and contentment of a domicile and whinging of a husband, consecrate cruelty.
23. In a benefaction case, holding an altogether design of a control of a petitioner-wife towards a respondent-husband and a resources that she launched confidence record opposite a respondent-husband with certain claim of maltreatment per that she led no justification and a respondent-husband was discharged, that she also took out divorce record opposite a father that court’s efforts during settlement of a parties in that box failed, though after on notwithstanding opportunities she did not cite any justification and authorised a fit to be liberated in default, and that these record it would appears were attempted by approach of nuisance that though doubt contingency have caused mental woe to a respondent father it contingency be hold that a respondent has determined a factum of cruelty.
24. It has however, been argued on interest of a petitioner-wife that a respondent-husband had caused her injuries on 6th February, 1978 per that she had lodged a news and as a outcome where of she had left a residence a therefore, it is a box of mutual cruelty. Even it for argument’s sake, it is supposed that a injuries in doubt had been caused by a respondent-husband on 6th Feb., 1978, it would not make any difference. If a respondent-husband had sought use on a belligerent of abandonment then, of course, this control on a partial of a respondent-husband could have been pleaded by display that it was he who had given means to a postulant mom to leave a houses. Here a position is wholly different.
25. It has been lastly contended that a refusal on a partial of a postulant mom to prepared tea on one arise for a respondent-husband’s friends, would not consecrate cruelty and in support of his acquiescence anxiety has been finished to Smt. Santosh v. Bharat Bhushan, 1980 Hindu LR 85. There is no brawl with a tender that a wandering box of this kind by itself would not consecrate mental cruelty of a kind, though a respondent-husband box is that a postulant mom has been arrogant, that her control has been constantly scornful towards him, that she had been neglecting a children, that during times he used to prepared dishes for a children and he used to dress them adult himself and that she used to leave a residence though his determine and used to sojourn divided days together ad that in her scarcity he had to prepared a dishes for a children and for himself and dress adult a children, besides a other claim per to a indictment of unlawful family with his brother’s wife.
26. Mr. Gopi Chand schooled Counsel for a petitioner-wife placed faith on Mst. Raj Kumari v. Ram Parkash Singal, (1968) 70 Pun LR 879 wherein claim that she abused a father and would during times not prepared dishes as a criticism since he would sent income to his aged relatives and an noxious brother, and had brought a tawiz into a residence to emanate in him loathing for his parents, that are of some-more critical nature, were hold not to volume to cruelty. In My opinion this management can be of no assistance to him. Sharma J. Clearly celebrated that there was no reasoning justification on a record to infer those allegations and it was by a approach celebrated that even if for a consequence of justification it was to be deliberate that a contribution purported by a father were loyal afterwards also a same would frequency allow a good belligerent for extenuation a direct for legal subdivision since a same were clearly instances of conjugal life. What is some-more a judgment of cruelty is undergoing a change as celebrated by Tiwana, J. In Ashwani Kumar Sehgal v. Smt. Swatantar Sehgal. 1978 Cur LJ 443 and a View taken by Sharma J. appears to be on a regressive side that no longer binds good.
27. For a reasons afore-mentioned, we wholly determine with a perspective taken by a matrimonial justice below. Therefore, we find no consequence in this interest and boot a same, though leave a parties to bear their possess costs.
28. Appeal dismissed.
