SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nirmala Gollen vs Devender Gollen on 9 January, 2020

FAO-M No. 119 of 2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : FAO-M No. 119 of 2017
Date of Decision : January 09, 2020

Nirmala Gollen …. Appellant
vs.

Davender Gollen …. Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA.

* * *
Present : Mr. Sandeep Berwal, Advocate
for the appellant.

Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate
for the respondent.
* * *

MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. :

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree as passed by

learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal on 08.02.2017, whereby the

petition as filed by the husband (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’)

against the wife (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) under Section 13

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of their marriage had

been allowed, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. As per the brief factual matrix as canvassed by the respondent

as the petitioner in the above-said divorce petition, the marriage between the

parties was solemnized on 17.04.2002 and one male child had born out of

this wedlock. The appellant did not approve of staying in the joint family

1 of 6
19-01-2020 09:18:49 :::
FAO-M No. 119 of 2017 2

and she pressurized the respondent to live separately. The respondent

fulfilled her wish but thereafter, she raised the demand of transfer of the

agricultural land in her name and also demanded the cash amount from her

father-in-law and moreover, she used to quarrel over petty matters because

of her short tamper. She moved numerous false complaints before the

Women Cell as well as other authorities against the respondent, his family

members and even against the police officers who found her allegations

to be false. She also falsely implicated the respondent and his family

members in a criminal case under Sections 376-B, 354-A, 354-B, 323, 509,

506, 120-B IPC resulting in intense mental and physical cruelty to the

respondent. Thus, the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken

and it was impossible for the parties to reside together.

3. In her written statement, the appellant, who was respondent

before the Trial Court, contested the claim of the respondent the ground of

concealment of true and material facts from the Court. She also asserted

that her father had spent an amount of Rupees seven lacs on her marriage

but the respondent and his family members ill-treated her and demanded

more money. The respondent used to beat her and to use abusive words for

her. He also pressurized her to get visa for him by paying Rs.20 lacs. In

the complaint as filed by her against the respondent under Section 12 of

the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’), the respondent was

directed not to dispossess her and her son from the shared house-hold and

he was also directed to provide her a separate room, kitchen, bathroom,

2 of 6
19-01-2020 09:18:50 :::
FAO-M No. 119 of 2017 3

electricity and water connections and also to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to

her. The father of the respondent also tried to outrage her modesty and

therefore, the said criminal case was got registered against them.

4. In his replication as filed by the respondent before the Trial

Court, he had reiterated his earlier stand as taken in the petition besides

controverting the assertions as advanced by the appellant in her written

statement. Learned Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

framed the following issues on 21.03.2015 :-

“1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to
obtain a decree of divorce from the respondent on
the ground of cruelty as mentioned in the
petition? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner has concealed
the true and material facts from the court, if so, its
effect? OPR

3. Relief.”

After the appraisal and evaluation of the evidence, oral as well

as documentary, as led by both the parties on the afore-said issues and after

hearing learned counsel for both the parties, learned Trial Court answered

both the issues in favour of the present respondent and against the appellant.

Resultantly, the impugned judgment and decree, dissolving the marriage

between the parties, were passed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties in the

present appeal and have perused the record thoroughly.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the

3 of 6
19-01-2020 09:18:50 :::
FAO-M No. 119 of 2017 4

respondent and his family members had been ill-treating and harassing the

appellant from the very beginning and had been demanding more money

and it is the appellant who had actually suffered mental as well as physical

cruelty at the hands of the respondent and his family members and therefore,

the impugned judgment and decree, as passed for the dissolution of the

marriage between the parties, are illegal and deserve to be set aside, whereas

learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the impugned judgment

and decree have been passed by learned Trial Court while appreciating the

evidence of the parties in the right perspective.

7. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the arguments as

advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the considered

opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit because as categorically

mentioned in the impugned judgment itself, the complaint, as filed by the

appellant against the respondent under the Act, had been dismissed by the

Trial Court with the exemplary costs of Rs.500/- while observing that the

complainant, i.e. the present appellant, was not proved to be an aggrieved

person and was not entitled to any relief as claimed by her and even the

appeal against the order of dismissal of this complaint had also been

dismissed by learned Appellate Court while observing that the appellant

was not a victim of the domestic violence and rather, it was vice-versa and

the filing of the complaint by the complainant was a blatant misuse of the

beneficial provisions of the Act.

8. Another petition as preferred by the appellant under Section 31

4 of 6
19-01-2020 09:18:50 :::
FAO-M No. 119 of 2017 5

of the Act had also been dismissed with costs and the appeal as filed against

this order of dismissal had also been dismissed by the Appellate Court on

20.07.2015. Moreover, the afore-mentioned criminal case as lodged at the

instance of the appellant against the respondent and his family members had

also ended in his acquittal with the observations that the complaint filed by

the prosecutrix was nothing but a bundle of lies and it was the case of

settling score with the husband and his family members. The application as

moved by the appellant in the above-said criminal case under Section 319 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning two more family members

of the respondent had been dismissed by the Trial Court and the order

of dismissal was upheld even by this Court. The appellant has not placed

any material on the file to show that any of the afore-said orders, as passed

against her in the above-mentioned proceedings, has ever been set aside by

any competent Court/Forum. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Rani Narasimha Sastry vs. Rani Suneela Rani (Civil Appeal No. 8871

of 2019) that “when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted

of the allegations of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, levelled by

the wife against him, it amounts to cruelty on the husband and he is entitled

to the decree of divorce”. In view of these observations, we are of the

considered opinion that the judgment and decree as passed by the learned

Trial Court do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and hence, there are

no cogent reasons to interfere with the same.

5 of 6
19-01-2020 09:18:50 :::
FAO-M No. 119 of 2017 6

9. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, this appeal, being sans

any merit, is hereby dismissed.

(DAYA CHAUDHARY ) (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
JUDGE JUDGE

January 09, 2020
monika

Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.

6 of 6
19-01-2020 09:18:50 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation