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 :::