FAO No.114-M of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.114-M of 2003 Date of decision: 20.11.2009 Surjit Kaur ..Appellant Versus Avtar Singh & Anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present:- Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- VINOD K. SHARMA,J. This is wife's appeal against the judgment and decree dated FAO No.114-M of 2003 2 14.2.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide which petition filed by respondent/husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act) was accepted and the marriage between the parties was ordered to be dissolved by a decree of divorce. The parties to the litigation were married according to Sikh rites on 21.6.1990 at Mohalla Nanakpura, Raikot, District Ludhiana. After the marriage, the parties resided together at village Jodhan, District Ludhiana. No child was born out of this wedlock. The case of the respondent/husband was that the appellant/wife developed relations with Sukhchain Singh son of Naranjan Singh, resident of Sabaddi khurd and at his instance created a scene in matrimonial home whenever the respondent/husband objected to the illicit liaison. It was the case set up by the respondent/husband that the appellant claimed that she would rather leave the respondent/husband than severe her relation with Sukhchain Singh. The case further set up was that all attempts of the respondent and his relations to discontinue illicit relation failed. The appellant thereafter left matrimonial home on 22.8.1992 without any reasonable cause. It was the case of the respondent that he along with respectables went to the house of the appellant to persuade her not to do illegal or illegitimate acts but she refused to join the society of respondent No.1 by claiming that she would live with Sukhchain Singh. Divorce was also sought on the ground of desertion besides cruelty and adultery. The appellant appeared in pursuance to the notice and filed written statement contesting the petition. Relationship between the parties FAO No.114-M of 2003 3 was admitted. It was pleaded case of the respondent that the marriage between the parties had taken place 19-20 years back and after the marriage the appellant was blessed with a male child but he died soon thereafter. Illicit relations with Sukhchain Singh were denied. The appellant also denied the averments with regard to the convening of panchayat as alleged in the petition. It was claimed that Sukhchain Singh is the husband of real sister of respondent No.1 and was supporting the respondent in getting decree of divorce. The stand taken in the written statement was that about 3 years prior to the filing of the petition she was mercilessly beaten by the respondent/husband and turned out of matrimonial home. It was claimed that the appellant and her family members tried to resolve the matter but the respondent refused to keep the appellant in the matrimonial home. It was also the case of the appellant/wife that the respondent claimed that he wanted to marry a beautiful girl as he was a smart person. It was also claimed that she was willing to join the matrimonial home but the respondent was not willing to keep her. In the replication the averments made in the petition were reasserted while denying those made in the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues:- 1. Whether respondent No.1 has been maintaining illicit relations with Sukhchain Singh, respondent No.2? If so its effect? OPA 2. Whether respondent has treated the petitioner with FAO No.114-M of 2003 4 cruelty? OPA 3. Whether respondent has deserted the petitioner for a period of more than two years before filing of the petition? OPA 4. Relief. In support of his case the respondent/husband examined Sadhu Singh, Member Panchayat as PW 1 who supported the case of the respondent with regard to the illicit relations of the appellant with Sukhchain Singh. He also deposed regarding convening of panchayat by the respondent/husband as he was one of the members of the panchayat. Learned matrimonial court found that his evidence remained unshaken in the cross examination. The respondent also examined Ujjagar Singh who has also testified that the appellant was having illicit relations with one Sukhchain Singh. Needless to mention that even respondent No.1 supported his case while appearing as his own witness. As against this the appellant examined her brother to deny the allegations made in the petition besides herself appearing in the witness box. Learned matrimonial court found that though specific stand was taken by the appellant in the written statement that she was given merciless beating and turned out of house but she failed to disclose any reason for such beating. The learned matrimonial court also found that the stand of the appellant that Sukhchain Singh was the husband of sister of respondent No.1 stood belied from the fact that the name of the husband of the sister of respondent No.1 was Rachhpinder Singh and not Sukhchain Singh. FAO No.114-M of 2003 5 On appreciation of evidence, the learned matrimonial court decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondent/husband. In view of the findings recorded on issue No.1, the learned matrimonial court found that maintaining of illicit relations by the wife with a third person is a worst type of cruelty and therefore, decided issue No.2 also in favour of the respondent/husband and against the appellant/wife. The learned matrimonial court also found that it was admitted case that the appellant was staying at her parental house for the last 4 years and further that in spite of the best efforts made by the respondent/husband she had refused to join his company. The learned matrimonial court found that merely because she had offered to join the matrimonial home in court, could not nullify the fact that the appellant/wife had deserted the respondent/husband for a period of more than 2 years immediately preceding filing of the present petition for dissolution of marriage. Therefore, the leaned matrimonial court also found that ground of desertion also stood proved. Mr.Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant challenged the judgment and decree on the plea that Sukhchain Singh was real brother-in-law of the respondent/husband and therefore, the learned Additional District Judge committed an error in recording the finding on issue No.1 against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the cross-examination of PW 1 to contend that the allegations regarding illicit relations by PW 1 were based on information said to have been given by the husband and therefore, was merely hearsay FAO No.114-M of 2003 6 evidence on which no reliance could be placed. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the cross-examination Sadhu Singh could not give the date and month when panchayats were said to have gone and therefore, the evidence of PW 1 did not inspire any confidence. He also referred to the statement of PW 4, to point out the contradiction. Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter referred to other statements to contend that the evidence led by the respondent/husband did not inspire confidence, whereas the evidence led by the appellant showed that allegations of adultery were totally false and baseless. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that plea of desertion has been accepted merely on the basis of presumption. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the petition having been filed with inordinate delay was liable to be rejected under section 23 of the Act. On consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in dispute that the allegations levelled by the respondent were supported by an independent evidence as well as relations. The stand taken by the appellant in the written statement regarding her being turned out of matrimonial house after giving beatings was rightly not believed by the learned matrimonial court for the reason that neither the appellant nor his brother was able to give any reason for giving beatings as there was no allegations of the demand of dowry etc. The plea that the reason of discord was that the respondent wanted to marry a beautiful girl was also FAO No.114-M of 2003 7 not proved by leading any evidence. Rather the appellant in her statement also did not mention this fact. If the evidence led by the parties is read vis- a-vis the pleadings no other conclusion than the one arrived at by the learned matrimonial court can be arrived at. It is well settled law that the appellate court cannot reverse the judgment merely on the plea that other view also is possible. In the present case the findings have been recorded on appreciation of evidence of three witnesses who were respectable persons, whereas, the stand of the appellant that Sukhchain Singh was brother-in-law of respondent No.1 and was supporting his case stood belied as name of brother-in-law of respondent is Rachhpinder Singh. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, cannot be accepted Consequently, findings of the learned matrimonial court are affirmed on all the issues and appeal is ordered to be dismissed but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K.Sharma) 20.11.2009 Judge rp