Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bench: JUSTICE A Chaudhary
Paramjeet vs Ranjit Singh on 3 June, 1994
False and frivolous allegations to superior officer about husband amounts to cruelty. Decree of divorce granted.
1. This appeal has been filed by Smt. Paramjit against the judgment of Matrimonial Court, Jalandhar which on a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Ranjit Singh, had dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce,
2. The challenge to the judgment of the Matrimonial Court is that the respondent-husband had failed to prove the charge of cruelty and that the entire approach of the Matrimonial Court is based on conjectures. On the other hand, it has been contended by the Counsel for the respondent-husband that the charge of cruelty was duly established against the appellant-wife and judgment of the Matrimonial Court is based on evidence.
3. This Court had tried to resettle the matrimonial controversy between the parties, but he effort did not yield any result. Smt. Paramjit appellant, stated that the Matrimonial Court did not grant her any permanent alimony. The respondent-husband thereafter moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2644-CII-1994 and offered Rs. 50,000/- by way of permanent alimony on 19.5.1994. However, the appellant Smt. Paramjit did not accept the offer of compromise. Since, there is no possibility of compromise, the matter is being decided on merit.
4. In this case, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 29.9.1984 and the appellant gave birth to a female child on 25.6.1986 and to a male child on 24.10.1988. The allegation against the appellant-wife is that she had again conceived, but without the consent of the respondent-husband suffered abortion from Primary Health Centre, Kala Bakra, District Jalandhar. When this, fact came to the knowledge of the respondent-husband he was shocked. The other allegation is that the appellant-wife had left the matrimonial home in February, 1988 and she got a false case registered against the husband under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the husband had given her injuries. She also levelled allegations of extra-marital relations with a view to defame the respondent-husband. The proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were dismissed. The respondent-husband was also got arrested and he remained in Police custody. The appellant wife had also taken her Istri Dhan without the consent and knowledge of the respondent-husband. According to the respondent-husband, the appellant wife had treated him with cruelty and he bad realized that it was not safe to live with the appellant-wife without danger to his life and property.
5. The allegations were denied by the appellant. The Matrimonial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties had framed the following issues:
1. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty after the solemnization of the marriage and as alleged in the petition ? If so, its effect ? OPA
6. In order to prove his case, the respondent-husband had stated that the applicant wife had filed a complaint against him before the Public Grievances Officer, the filing of which was proved by the testimony of Keshwa Nand (PW-6) who had deposed in the Matrimonial Court that in his presence Paramjit appellant told Ranjit Singh that she wanted to live at Jalandhar. This witness further deposed that whenever he visited the house of Ranjit Singh at Jalandhar, Paramjit complained against the character of Ranjit Singh. As per testimony of this witness, Ranjit Singh was got arrested by the father of Paramjit appellant. According to this witness, Ranjit Singh was a man of good character and his behaviour in the office with his colleagues was also good. It is also revealed from the testimony of this witness that on account of the behaviour of his wife, Ranjit Singh used to remain under stress and strain. Ram Prakash father of Paramjit appellant while appearing as RW-2 had identified the signatures of Paramjit on the complaint filed by her before the Public Grievances Officer.
7. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.
From the perusal of the paper-book, it is observed that Paramjit appellant, had filed a complaint against her husband Ranjit Singh before the Public Grievances Officer and on an enquiry having been conducted, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar had submitted his report on 22.8.1990. The allegations levelled against the husband-respondent in the said complaint were not proved. It is also seen from the record that the appellant-wife levelled allegation against the character of her husband Ranjit Singh and the appellant-wife had mentioned in this complaint that a dispute had arisen between them as her husband was a man of bad character. The exact words used in Punjabi language were “Pati Bad Chalan.” This application was moved by the appellant-wife before the Sub Divisional Officer on 4.7.1988 which was duly signed by her.
8. It has come in the statement of the father of the appellant that her daughter Paramjit had filed an application against Ranjit Singh and an inquiry was conducted and report was submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police on 22.8.1990.
9. The allegations levelled against the respondent-husband were not proved. After crystalising the evidence, the Matrimonial Court had reached the conclusion that the appellant-wife was in the habit of levelling allegations one after the other against her husband which could not be proved by her.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the result is that the respondent-husband has been able to prove that the appellant-wife had treated with him cruelty after the solemnization of the marriage. It is well settled that false, defamatory, malicious, baseless and unproved allegations made against the spouse to superior officer or authority, amount to cruelty.
11. It is also a case of broken marriage and the repeated efforts by the Court for reconciliation also did not yield any fruit, it will be in the interest of both the parties to reside separately as it is not possible for them to reside together under the same roof as husband and wife. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned findings arrived at by the Matrimonial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.