Constantly Insulting Husband in Presence of Friends Amounts to Cruelty
Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bench: JUSTICE S.S. Sandhawalia, CJ. & S.C. Mittal
Chuni Lal Gulati vs Krishana Rani on 21 August 1981
Law Point:
Constantly Insulting Husband in Presence of Friends Amounts to Cruelty.
JUDGEMENT
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appeal of Smt. Krishna Rani preferred against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, granting decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against her and in favour of her husband Chuni Lal.
2. Chuni Lal sought relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The learned Single Judge upon a detailed consideration of the evidence on record affirmed the finding of the learned District Judge in favour of Chuni Lal. The facts of cruelty proved against Krishna Rani are that she has been a wife of nagging type, constantly insulting Chuni Lal—even in the presence of his friends. She has been neglecting the children for whom she would not cook meals in time and frequently beat them, thus an atmosphere in the house was constantly surcharged with tension. She has been self-willed that she would leave the house and remain away for days without permission of Chuni Lal. She would not only decline to prepare tea for the friends of Chuni Lal but also create a scene by beating the children. Lastly, she on 6th of February, 1978, lodged report Exhibit P. 1 with the Police alleging therein inter alia that Chuni Lal had illicit relations with the wife of his elder brother, that Chuni Lal forced her to take urine and night soil and that he after going to the toilet used to come straight for taking his meals without washing his hands. In consequence, the Police arrested Chuni Lal and then launched security proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure against him. After a lapse of six months the said proceedings came to an end.
3. Learned counsel for Krishna Rani contended that report Exhibit P. 1 was not admissible in evidence, inasmuch as, it was not duly proved by the police official who wrote it. On the other hand, learned counsel for Chuni Lai referred to para 5 of the divorce petition wherein he made reference to the making of the said report by Krishna Rani. In her written statement there is a clear admission of the fact that the report Exhibit P. 1 was made by her to the police. Furthermore, Constable Madan Mohan appeared as P.W. 1 in Court, brought the original report and having testified that it was made by Krishna Rani, he produced its copy Exhibit P. 1. This witness was not at all cross-examined, nor was any objection raised to its admissibility. Above all, the view of the learned Single Judge that Exhibit P. 1 was admissible in evidence stands supported by Padman and Others v. Hanwanta and Others, AIR 1915 PC 111, and the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act referred to in the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel for Krishna Rani instead of dealing with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge, referred to Hassan Abdulla v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1962 Guj. 214. That was a murder case wherein the relevancy of the first information report in the light of Sections 154 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the scope of Sections 35 of the Evidence Act was considered. This ruling is obviously distinguishable. Accordingly, we find that the learned Single Judge rightly held report Exhibit P. 1 as admissible in evidence.
4. Learned Counsel for Krishna Rani then contended that Chuni Lal, having condoned the cruelty attributed to her, could not take advantage of the same. The argument has not impressed us because the learned counsel failed to specify which of the various acts of cruelty was condoned by Chuni Lal and when. Besides, this aspect of the case has also received due consideration by the learned Single Judge who, for valid reasons, over-ruled the ground of condonation raised on behalf of Krishna Rani.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
Appeal dismissed.