GURDEEP KAUR Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matrimonial bond between Appellant wife and Respondent-husband was formed in 1966. In 1967 a female child was born out of the wedlock. At about this time, the wife was allegedly abandoned by the husband. On March 11, 1969, she instituted a petition under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to claim maintenance. Within three days of this development the husband instituted a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act which has been characterised as a counter-blast having regard to the timing of the petition.

(2.) The trial court negatived the plea of the wife that the husband was guilty of cruel treatment and accordingly she was justified in withdrawing from the society of the husband. The evidence adduced by the wife was disbelieved. The trial court under the circumstances, granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the Respondent-husband. The wife approached the High Court by way of a First Appeal. The learned Single Judge who heard the First Appeal closely and carefully scrutinised the evidence adduced by both the parties. Upon appreciation of evidence the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the witnesses examined by the husband were not reliable. The evidence of the husband was considered unworthy of acceptance. On the other hand the evidence of the wife inspired confidence. The learned Single Judge accordingly concluded that the husband was guilty of cruelty towards the wife. The learned Single Judge on these premises allowed the appeal and dismissed the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights The husband preferred a Letters Patent Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court. We are constrained to say that the learned Judges have altogether failed to examine the evidence adduced by the parties. The learned Judges failed to apply their minds to the reasoning unfolded in the elaborate judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench has not disagreed with the assessment of evidence made by the learned Single Judge or the findings recorded by him. And even so, the Division Bench has reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge and set aside his judgment. It may be reiterated that the learned Single Judge has accepted the evidence of the wife and the witnesses examined by her whereas he has disbelieved the evidence of the husband and the witnesses examined by him. It was on an in-depth assessment of the evidence made by the learned Single Judge that he had rested his conclusion that the wife was justified in withdrawing from the society of the husband in view of the fact that the husband was treating her with cruelty. If the Division Bench had disagreed with the assessment of the evidence and had reached the conclusion that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge were not warranted, it would have been a different matter. It would have been understandable. What the Division Bench has done is reflected in the following passage extracted from the judgment under appeal: