RAVINDER KAUR Vs. BALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's first appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 16-1-1986 passed by Shri D.K. Jain, II Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 91-A of 1984 dismissing the appellant's claim for divorce under Section 13 of the said Act.

(2.) That the parties are legally married husband and wife is no longer in dispute. That they are not living together since 15-11-1979 is also not in dispute. The claim of the appellant, as set out in the plaint, was that she was treated with cruelty from the very beginning of her marriage and was ultimately driven out of the house after giving good beating. This fact was denied by the respondent. The appellant in her statement on oath only stated that the respondent used to quarrel with her and even beat her. She also stated that he used to keep a Chhuri with him and sometimes used to threaten to kill her. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she had not lodged any complaint about threat to life by the respondent nor has she made any statement about it in her plaint. She also admitted that she did not lodge any report with the police. The learned Judge found nothing no record to draw an inference of cruelty sufficient to pass the decree for divorce and, therefore, dismissed the suit. That is how the matter is before this Court in this appeal.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and given its anxious consideration to the facts on record, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The bare statement of the appellant that the respondent used to fight with her and give her beating is too vague to rely upon, particularly, when no report about alleged beating has been made to any one in the past and no allegations about threatening on " the point of knife has been made in the plaint. It cannot be overlooked that the parties are Sikh by faith and, therefore, possession of a Chhuri by the respondent would not be offensive and would not lead to the conclusion that he was keeping the same to use it against the appellant. It must be realised that marital tie, particularly, in this country, are intended to last forever and hence marriage is not dissolved unless there is proof to the satisfaction of this Court of grounds contained in Section 13 of the Act. Submission of the learned counsel based on Supreme Court decision in Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Ms. S. Dastane (AIR 1975 SC 1534) does not help the appellant in the absence of any convincing evidence adduced by her.