IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
FAO No. 303 of 2009.
Reserved on : 20.04.2018.
.
Decided on : 26th April, 2018.
Malkiyat Singh …..Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Asha Devi ….Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Rubeena Bhatt, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
The instant appeal stands directed against the
pronouncement recorded by the learned District Judge,
Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., on 23.05.2009, in, H.M.A.
Petition No. 34-N/III/2005,whereby, he refused to annul the
marital ties inter se the appellant herein with the respondent
herein.
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
02/05/2018 23:17:08 :::HCHP
…2…
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent
.
herein is the legally wedded wife of the appellant
herein/petitioner. It is pleaded that after her marriage with
the petitioner/appellant herein three children were born, who
are living with their mother. After the marriage till April,
1998, the relations inter se the litigating parties were cordial,
but in the month of April, 1998, the brother of respondent,
namely, Kirshan Chand came to the house of the petitioner
and he wanted to take the respondent with him. The
appellant/petitioner permitted the respondent to accompany
her brother and thereafter she never came back. On the
contrarily, the respondent had filed a petition under Section
125, Cr.P.C., for maintenance, wherein, she was awarded
maintenance of Rs.500/- per month. Thereafter, in the year
2001, a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C., was again filed on
behalf of the minor children through the respondent against
the petitioner. Consequently, maintenance allowance of
Rs.300/- per month each was granted n favour of the minor
children, and, inspite of best efforts, the respondent refused
02/05/2018 23:17:08 :::HCHP
…3…
to join the company of the appellant/petitioner. The
.
appellant/petitioner was employed in the Assam Rifles. The
respondent had launched proceedings under Section 498-A,
IPC against the petitioner/appellant herein and his relatives
just to harass them and Commanding Officer of Assam Rifles
terminated the services of the petitioner in December, 2002
and the life of the petitioner has been made hell by the
respondent amounting to cruelty. It is also alleged that the
petitioner had sustained mental as well as physical cruelty at
the hands of the respondent.
3. The petition for divorce instituted by the petitioner
before the learned District Judge concerned, stood contested
by the respondent, by hers instituting a reply thereto,
wherein, she controverted all the allegations constituted
against her in the apposite petition. It is alleged that the
petitioner had suppressed the material facts from the court.
The petitioner and his family members had been giving
beatings to the respondent on the ground that she did not
bring the sufficient dowry and her appearance was also not
02/05/2018 23:17:08 :::HCHP
…4…
good. The petitioner and his family members had cursed the
.
respondent that she had given birth to a female child and also
gave beating to the respondent had neglected the respondent
and her children, including the newly born child and
threatened that the petitioner would marry one Anju Kumari,
daughter of Sh. Chuni Lal, resident of Chatter, Tehsil Nurpur,
District Kangra, H.P. It is pleaded that in pursuance of this,
the petitioner with the help of his sister and family members,
had eloped with said Anju Kumari and also did not avail two
months’ leave. It is further pleaded that the respondent was
turned out from her matrimonial home.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial
Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at
contest:-
1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner
with cruelty, as alleged?OPP.
2. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as
alleged?OPR
3. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act and
conduct from filing the present petition?OPR
4. Relief.
02/05/2018 23:17:08 :::HCHP
…5…
5. On an appraisal of evidence adduced before the
.
learned District Judge, the latter dismissed the apposite
petition.
6. The petitioner for proving the apposite issue,
onus, of, proof whereof, was cast upon him, stepped into the
witness box as PW-1, and, in his examination-in-chief, he,
rendered a testification, in concurrence with the averments,
borne in the petition. His testification is lent corroboration by
PW-2. The testifications of the aforesaid are not sufficient, for
constraining this Court, to record affirmative findings, upon
the apposite issue(s). The reasons for forming the aforesaid
conclusion, ensues from (a) of PW-2 admittedly residing in a
locality contradistinct vis-a-vis the matrimonial home of the
respondent herein; (b) his acquiescing qua his never visiting
the matrimonial home of the respondent; (c) thereupon, it
being inevitable to infer of his being unaware of the
happenings inside the matrimonial home, of, the respondent,
(d) concomitantly his being disabled to firmly disclose
whether the petitioner maltreated or meted cruelty upon the
02/05/2018 23:17:08 :::HCHP
…6…
respondent; (e) his acquiescing qua the respondent, staying,
.
at her matrimonial home along with her in-laws and brother-
in-laws, yet with none of the aforesaid standing examined,
whereas, they constituted the best evidence, in support of the
apposite averments, cast in the Hindu Marriage Petition,
thereupon, the omission of their examination, despite theirs
constituting the best evidence, hence constrain an inference,
of, the apt omissions being deliberate, for blunting the
emanation of truth therefrom.
7. Contrarily, this Court, upon, emergence of cogent
proof, hence, impute sanctity to the contentions reared by the
respondent, in her reply furnished to the apposite petition,
wherein, she espouses of hers rather holding, good,
reasonable, and, tangible ground, for not, cohabiting with the
petitioner at the latter’s home. The apposite ground(s), is,
comprised in the petitioner maltreating her, and, also is
comprised in the petitioner maintaining, one Anju Kumari, as
his mistress. The apt evidence in proof of the aforesaid, is,
comprised (a) in a complaint, existing on record, embodying
02/05/2018 23:17:08 :::HCHP
…7…
therein commission, of, offences under Section 498 of the IPC,
.
by the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent; (b) recitals
occurring in a letter, borne in Ex. R-7, qua the petitioner
holding an amorous relationship with another lady. The
aforesaid documentary evidence, when read along with the
factum of the services of the petitioner being terminated, on
account of his contracting an invalid second marriage, hence,
lead to a firm conclusion, of, the petitioner perpetrating
cruelty, upon, the respondent, during, the period of her stay
with the petitioner, at the latter’s home, and, also hers hence
holding tangible reasons, for, not, cohabiting with the
petitioner at her matrimonial home.
8. The above discussion unfolds that the conclusions
as arrived by the learned trial Court are based upon a proper
and mature appreciation, of, the relevant evidence existing on
record. While rendering the findings, the learned trial Court
has not excluded germane and apposite material from
consideration.
02/05/2018 23:17:08 :::HCHP
…8…
9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the
.
instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The impugned
judgment and decree is maintained and affirmed. All pending
applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back
forthwith.
26th April, 2018.
(jai)
r to (Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge.
02/05/2018 23:17:08 :::HCHP