REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.294 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.294 of 2007 Date of Decision : February 16, 2011 Balraj Singh Rai .... Appellant Versus Mrs. Gunmeet Rai & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. I. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Raman Mahajan Advocate for the respondent No.1. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.1-Balraj Singh Rai has filed the instant second appeal. Suit was filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff Mrs. Gunmeet Rai against defendant No.1-appellant and his parents defendants No.2 and 3 (proforma respondents No.2 and 3 herein). It is undisputed that defendant No.1-appellant is Non Resident Indian (NRI) residing in Canada. Marriage of plaintiff was solemnized with defendant No.1 on 06.12.1995. Defendant No.2 who is father of defendant No.1 left India for Canada on 07.12.1995 whereas defendants No.1 and 3 i.e. husband and mother-in-law left for Canada on 16.12.1995. The plaintiff's grievance is that defendant No.1 has not remitted even a single penny to the plaintiff since after 16.12.1995 when he left for Canada. She has spent huge money on contacting the defendant No.1 on telephone in Canada. The plaintiff was to be called to Canada to join the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.294 OF 2007 -2- defendants, but the defendants did not take any steps in this direction. The plaintiff filed petition at Chandigarh under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, but ultimately the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn as service of defendant No.1 could not be procured. On the other hand, defendant no.1 filed divorce petition against the plaintiff in Canada and is said to have obtained some ex parte order of divorce which is not binding on the plaintiff. All dowry and stridhan articles have also been taken away by the defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff sought damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only) Defendants No.2 and 3 filed written statement which was also adopted by defendant No.1. It was admitted that all the defendants are settled in Canada. Factum of marriage of plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 06.12.1995 was also admitted. It was also conceded that defendant No.2 left for Canada on 07.12.1995 and defendants No.1 and 3 had left for Canada on 16.12.1995. However, it was pleaded that defendants took all the steps for immigration of plaintiff to Canada but the plaintiff herself did not complete the necessary formalities for the same. Averments made by the plaintiff in this regard were controverted. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 02.09.2002 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by plaintiff has been partly allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2005 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) as damages against defendant No.1 only whereas suit against defendants No.2 and 3 remains dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 has filed the instant second appeal. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.294 OF 2007 -3- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that defendants had sent necessary documents to the plaintiff as admitted by the plaintiff herself in cross-examination but the plaintiff did not complete the necessary formalities for her immigration to Canada and, therefore, plaintiff herself is at fault. The contention cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has simply stated that she received the papers in Canadian High Commission at New Delhi for immigration and she faxed those documents to Canada but no further information was received by her to go ahead. On the basis of this admission of the plaintiff in cross-examination, it cannot be said that there was any lapse on the part of the plaintiff in complying with formalities for her immigration to Canada. On the contrary, lower appellate court has rightly observed that defendant No.1 husband of the plaintiff left her in India just after ten days of the marriage. There was no reason for plaintiff for not doing the needful for going to Canada, because even before the marriage, the plaintiff very well knew that she had to go to Canada to settle in her matrimonial life as all the three defendants were already residing in Canada. On the contrary, the plaintiff had been running from pillar to post for her immigration to Canada. The plaintiff was also eager to join her husband in the matrimonial home. She even approached the police and also filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was not eager to go to Canada or was not taking steps for the same. In addition to the aforesaid, it is significant to notice that defendant No.1-appellant has not stepped into the witness box to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. Consequently, very strong adverse presumption REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.294 OF 2007 -4- arises against defendant No.1-appellant. Finding recorded by the lower appellate court against defendant No.1-appellant and in favour of plaintiff cannot be faulted. The said finding is supported by cogent reasons and is justified by evidence on record. Defendant No.1 did not dare to enter the witness box. Finding of the lower appellate court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence and therefore, the same does not warrant interference in second appeal nor any question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) has been awarded to the plaintiff who was deserted by defendant No.1 just ten days after her marriage. The whole life of the plaintiff has been spoiled. Plaintiff's virginity has been taken away and at the same time, she has been denied marital bliss just after ten days of the marriage. In fact this is one of thousands of such cases where NRI husbands have deserted their brides in Punjab. From the media reports, it appears that State Government is taking some steps in this direction to ameliorate the plight of such deserted brides. In the instant case, compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) awarded by the lower appellate court cannot be said to be excessive keeping in view all the facts and circumstance of the case. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 16th February, 2011 'raj'