PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. ROZY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-husband is in appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 9.9.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') of the respondent-wife for dissolution of marriage was allowed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.2.2009 according to Hindu rites. As per the respondent-wife, an amount of Rs. 4,50,000 was spent at the time of marriage and that dowry, as demanded, to the extent of Rs. 3,50,000 was given. The family of the appellant-husband was not satisfied with the dowry and started taunting the respondent-wife. There was a demand for Rs. 5,00,000 required for increasing the business of the appellant-husband. As per the allegations, the appellant-husband used to lock the respondent-wife in a room even without food. On being objected to, she was given severe beatings. She informed her parents and a panchayat was convened. But the appellant-husband was under the influence of his bhabhi viz., Babbu and had soft corner for her and most of the time was spent by the appellant-husband with his bhabhi. He started coming late under the influence of intoxication along with undesirable persons and used to direct the respondent-wife to serve those persons in the manner they like. On 11.1.2010, the appellant-husband remained with his bhabhi in her bedroom till 10 p.m., and thereafter, he left the house. He came back at 12.30 mid-night in deadly drunken condition. It is pleaded that respondent-wife was turned out from the house on 30.5.2010 after giving severe beatings and that her father and other respectable have approached the appellant-husband and other family members to sort out the differences but without any fruitful results. In written statement, it is pleaded that petition is a counter-blast to a petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by him and that the respondent-wife has concealed the material fact from the Court. It is pleaded that the respondent-wife treated the appellant-husband and his family members with cruelty and she used to call the appellant-husband with bad names and used filthy language. A panchayat was convened which went to the house of the respondent-wife, but the said panchayat has to come back because of the adamant attitude of the respondent-wife.

(2.) Respondent-wife examined herself as PW1 and also her father Ajit Pal-PW2, Chamkaur Singh-PW3, Boota Ram-PW4 and Barjinder Singh-PW5, members of the panchayat, who intervened for the resolution of the dispute between the parties. On the other hand, the appellant examined himself as RW1 and also examined his friend Vicky Narula as RW2 and Head Constable Mohinder Singh as RW3, who has produced a copy of complaint dated 3.8.2010. The learned Trial Court considered the entire evidence led by the parties and returned a finding that that incident on 11.1.2010 happened in the dead of night, when only family members were present. But none of the other family members have been examined by the appellant-husband to controvert the allegations of the respondent-wife. It is also found that the family members who were present at the time of incident are those related to the appellant-husband and would not depose in favour of the respondent-wife. Keeping in view the fact that the best evidence has not been produced during the course of trial, the learned Trial Court recorded a finding on the basis of the evidence produced that the appellant-husband has treated his wife with cruelty. On the basis of such evidence, the learned Trial Court has rightly dissolved the marriage of the parties by granting decree of divorce. It could not be pointed out that any evidence was not taken into consideration or has been misread. We find that the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court is a reasoning based on the evidence produced on record. We do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Dismissed.