PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICE G.C. Mital
CHAIN SINGH On 25 Oct 1983
The parties were married on 12.12.1979. A son was innate on 7.11.1980. At a time of marriage, a mom was employed as a teacher, since a father was still underneath training for being allocated as Physical Instructor. The mom is M.A., B. Ed., and is during benefaction operative as Second Headmistress, since a father is M.A., D.P.I., N.S. and is operative as Director in Physical Education. After sometime, a father filed a petition for divorce on a belligerent of mental cruelty, though a petition was discharged on 12.9.1981. On 8.3.1982, a benefaction petition for divorce was filed on a uninformed belligerent of cruelty that came into being after a preference of a progressing divorce petition. The sum of a cruelty purported were that in a matter done by a mom in prior divorce petition, she had done fake matter on promise that a father was carrying on with his brother’s wife. However, a vital belligerent of cruelty was that she had created dual letters that were after on exhibited as A1 and A2 wherein she had settled that he was ‘rascal’ and that his mother, sister and his brother’s mom had given birth to bastards. The Roman book of a difference is as follows :—
“Tohade nalon wade wade badmash categorical nak nall lakiran kadh-de dekhe han. Pehlan meri sas ne haram de jammi boor meri darani ne haram da jamia meri nanan vi dhariwal haram da ee jamm dee firdi hai.”
These difference caused mental cruelty to him giving a belligerent for divorce and thus, he came to a Court. The mom contested a petition. The following issues were framed :—
1. Whether a postulant was treated with cruelty by a respondent, if so, to what outcome ?
2. Whether a benefaction focus is maintainable ?
After justification was led, a Court below, by a good deliberate visualisation and direct antiquated 11.10.1982, authorised a divorce petition and postulated divorce after recording a anticipating that minute Ex. A1 caused mental cruelty to a husband. This is wife’s appeal.
After conference a schooled warn for a parties and on examination of a record, we am of a opinion that there is no range for division in a preference of a Court below.
I talked to both a parties and attempted if there was a possibility of reconciliation. The father indicate vacant refused to keep a appellant and he went to a border of observant that come what may, he can't mount a appellant, a lady of such a difficult tongue, acts and manners and that he would, rather, dedicate suicide. On articulate to a wife, we found that a father was right that she has a sharp tongue and can't be believed as she is prepared to make any fake matter and reject her possess writings. From reading of her matter done in Court below, we found that she disowned several papers put to her, including letters Ex. A1 and A2. To exam either she was revelation a law or not, we put to her, her possess created matter and asked if a signatures thereunder, as also underneath a verification, were her’s or not. She denied her signatures. The hearing Court had taken her scratch on a square of paper, as also her signatures by approach of citation essay and signatures to total with letters Ex. A1 and A2, and some some-more papers constructed on a record. When those citation scratch and signatures were put to her, she denied a writing, as also a signatures. But when she was done to review a note underneath to a outcome that her citation signatures and scratch were taken in Court for a purpose of comparison with other papers on record, she pronounced ‘yes,’ it was her scratch contained her signatures. Keeping in perspective a aforesaid, we found that a Court next was ideally fit in comparing a scratch of letters A1 and A2 with a citation scratch performed in Court. The Court was also right in comparing a citation scratch with her scratch contained in applications Ex. CW1/A and CW1/C, that were given by a mom for a send and for composition in aloft difficulty on comment of her softened qualifications. Even these papers were denied by her. we have also compared a scratch of Ex. CW1/A, CW1/C, A1 and A2 with a citation scratch and found that they are of one and a same chairman and that she done a fake matter in Court, denying that they were sealed by her and were in her hand.
Adverting to a essence of minute Ex. A1, we reason that a aforequoted difference could pretty means mental cruelty to a husband, as fake allegations of critical inlet were leveled opposite his mother, sister and brother’s wife. The mom has unconditionally unsuccessful to uncover on record, as to what could pretty prompt her to write such a minute to her husband. Even before me, it is not her box that her matter was truthful. Therefore, levelling of such fake allegations could pretty means mental woe to her father giving a pardonable belligerent to find divorce. Hence, a Court next was ideally fit in extenuation divorce on a aforesaid basis.
For a reasons available above, this interest is abandoned of all consequence and is discharged with costs.