PREM KAUR Vs. RATI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prem Kaur has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, dismissing her petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce against her husband Rati Ram, who in spite of service of notice of this appeal, has not put in appearance is this court.

(2.) The parties were admittedly married on 5th June, 1971. Rati Ram belongs to village Sunarian Kalan in district Rohtak. Preen Kaur is the daughter of Khushi Ram, resident of village Dighal in the same district. The petition rested on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. On both the points, the trial Judge recorded findings against Prem Kaur. Her learned counsel has first taken up the ground of cruelty. Preen Kaur's case in the petition and as stated by her as P.W.1 substantially is that after her marriage with Rati Ram, she gave birth to a son. The marriage took place in June, 1971, but it was in 1973 that she was mercilessly beaten by Rati Ram. As the maltreatment continued, she returned to her father's house in Dighal and remained there till February 1976. She was again taken by Rati Ram to his house but instead of leading a peaceful happy life, cruel treatment was meted out to her by Rati Ram. Under the compelling circumstances, she returned to her father's house in December, 1977. Ever since she has been living there.

(3.) In support of her testimony, Prem Kaur examined Ram Parshad (P.W.2, her father Khushi Ram (P.W.3) and Chander Bhan (P.W.5). As regards Prem Kaur herself, the learned trial Judge expressed the view that in her statement in Court, she made depositions which were not detailed in her petition. It need hardly be said that the entire evidence to be led by a party is not to be set out in the petition, which by and large has to contain the pleas on which the case of the party rests. So on that score, she should not have been held to be an unreliable witness. Further more, from the tenor of the judgment, the approach to the question appears to be faulty, inasmuch as unless there are serious infirmities in the evidence of a witness, corroboration is not to be sought for, but in this case, the trial Judge laid a lot of emphasis on corroboration on all the major facts stated by Prem Kaur, for example, that she was beaten with a lathi mercilessly Rati Ram in 1973 the trial Judge observed that there was no independent corroboration either by a doctor or by anybody else. It needs hardly be said that in matrimonial cases if a wife is beaten inside the house by a husband, how can large consists of the members of the family of the husband or his neighbours. Further more, having regard to the set up of our society, the moment a wife is beaten, she does not get herself medically examined. Her endeavour always is to put up with such cruelty as far as possible and not to create evidence for a case of dissolution. The approach of the trial Judge to her testimony being somewhat defective, it appears that she buffered for no fault of hers.