IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. M-318 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: August 16, 2011 Smt. Jayawati .. Appellant Vs. Hari Ram .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Having failed to seek dissolution of marriage from the trial court, the appellant- Jayawati has come up in appeal. The marriage between Jayawati- appellant (herein referred as, 'the appellant') was solemnized with Hari Ram- respondent (herein referred as, 'the respondent') on 22.4.2004. However, no child was born out of the wedlock. The respondent was dead drunker and used to beat her. He has been demanding `50,000/- and a car and termed it as a condition precedent for her rehabilitation in the house. Fed up with this behaviour of the respondent, the appellant had lodged a criminal case against him vide FIR No. 97 dated 21.2.2006 at Police Station City Palwal. Since then, she is living separately. Thus, the appellant has accused the respondent for cruelty and desertion. In reply submitted by the respondent, he has denied all the allegations and submitted that the appellant herself had left him and does not want to stay with him for the fault on her part. She stayed only for 20 days and left him thereafter. The criminal case registered against him and his family members is false. The trial court, vide order dated 17.7.2009, directed the respondent to pay a sum of `2000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and `1500/- as litigation expenses. However, failing to pay such amount, the trial court had struck off his defence on 3.2.2010. The appellant in support of her allegations examined herself as PW-1 and her father Ajit (PW2) and closed the evidence. F.A.O. No. M-318 of 2010 (O&M) -2- *** The trial court while finding that there is no evidence of cruelty or desertion, dismissed the petition. After the present appeal has been preferred, the respondent was served but none on his behalf appeared in the court. On scrutiny of the record it transpires that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.4.2004. There is un-rebutted evidence of the appellant and her father that the respondent was a dead drunker, used to beat her under the influence of liquor and has been demanding `50,000/- and a car. He was further threatening that she would not allow her to live in the house unless his demands are met with. A criminal litigation are going on between the parties. The appellant was turned out of the house in the year 2006 after giving beatings, consequent to which a case under Sections 406/498-A/506/34 IPC was registered against him and his family members. The negligent of the appellant was to such an extent that he never bothered to maintain her. Even after the maintenance was awarded by the trial court, he refused to pay the same, resultantly his defence was struck off. The respondent never condoned the act of cruelty since 20.11.2004 when she was given severe beatings. Even according to the respondent, he had kept the appellant only for 20 days. It is also in evidence that despite several panchayats convened by her parents, the efforts for reconciliation remained fruitless. Now the appellant is residing separately for the last 5 years. The trial court has observed that no medical record has been produced in order to prove the act of cruelty and maltreatment, but these observations appear to be flimsy as the matrimonial disputes when are at very initial stage, are not exposed to the public with the hope that the matrimonial ties may not come to an end and feud may not be multiplied. Ultimately, when the matter is not resolved within the four walls of house and no such hope is left the dispute comes out. In this case, the appellant having fed up with the cruel behaviour of the respondent had to take up the matter to the police station. Even thereafter, the respondent remained silent and did not come to the appellant to settle the matrimonial ties. Mere offer of the respondent in the court that he is ready to take the appellant, is immaterial as some times, such offer is made just to F.A.O. No. M-318 of 2010 (O&M) -3- *** get rid of the litigation, however, the animus disrandy on the part of the accused to beat her and not to rehabilitate her stands proved by the un- rebutted evidence led by the appellant. Even the fact that the respondent did not even bother to pay maintenance as awarded by the trial court and preferred to stay away, also proves his act of desertion. Even otherwise, no evidence has been led by the respondent that since November, 2006, till the filing of the petition or thereafter made any effort to rehabilitate her. In similar circumstances of the case, this court vide judgment delivered in case Surjit Kaur vs. Amarjit Singh 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 787 observed as under :- “11. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in spite of the order having been passed, the respondent/husband has not paid the maintenance pendente lite, or the litigation expenses as ordered by this court on 12.3.1998. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, is that the defence of the respondent/husband is liable to be struck off, on account of non-payment of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. 12. No body has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent to controvert the stand taken by the appellant. Resultantly, the defence of the respondent/husband is ordered to be struck off for non-payment of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. 13. In view of the striking off defence of the respondent/husband this appeal is allowed. The petition filed by the appellant for grant of divorce under section 13 of the Act is allowed but with no order as to costs.” Similarly, in the instant case, the trial court granted maintenance pendente lite and the litigation expenses vide order dated 17.7.2009, but the respondent did not bother to honour the order but had the courage to stay away from the trial. Similarly, he having failed to rebut the evidence led by the appellant goes a long way to establish the desertion F.A.O. No. M-318 of 2010 (O&M) -4- *** on the part of the accused. At the same time, the appellant has duly established on the record that the respondent had treated her with cruelty and deserted her without any reasonable cause or excuses, therefore, the trial court took a wrong view of the matter and erred in dismissing the petition. Resultantly, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the decree for dissolution of marriage is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent with costs. August 16, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge