RANJIT SINGH Vs. BHAGWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated August 7, 1970, delivered by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Sangrur, exercising the powers of District Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this controversy may briefly be stated as follows. Ranjit Singh appellant was married to Mst. Bhagwanti respondent on January 27, 1964, at village Dallanwala. After the marriage, the parties resided at the residence of the bridegroom at village Boolapur, police station, Amargarh, for about six months. The respondent gave birth to a male child who died a few months after his birth. It was alleged that in June, 1964, the respondent withdrew from the society of the appellant without any reasonable cause and went away to live with her parents in village Dallanwala. The appellant made repeated efforts and also took a Panchayat to bring her back but all these steps taken by him were of no avail. The respondent in her written statement did admit the factum of her marriage with the appellant, but submitted that the appellant gave her beating and turned her out of his house on many occasions making the life of the respondent extremely miserable. It was also stated that the appellant's family possessed considerable property and wealth which had charged their outlook of life. She made consistent efforts to live with her husband in spite of the maltreatment meted out to her. Inspite of all this she was turned out by the appellant on October, 1968, after she was given a merciless beating. On earlier occasions she did not go to the police because she wanted to live with the appellant as a dutiful wife in spite of the cruelty meted out to her by the appellant and the members of his family. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: -

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the pleadings and the entire evidence led by the parties. He has stated that the view taken by the learned trial Court could not be justified on the basis of the evidence on the record and the incidents after the institution of this petition on October 23, 1968, could not have been taken into consideration for non -suiting the appellant. In order to appreciate this contention, it becomes necessary to give a brief resume of the evidence adduced by the parties. The appellant produced Harnek Singh P. W. 1 and Mohinder Singh P. W. 2 besides appearing as his own witness. Harnek Singh P. W. 1 has stated that he was responsible for bringing about the marriage of the parties. The respondent lived at her husband's house for a period about six months whereafter she deserted him and left his house along with her ornaments. Several efforts were made to bring her back but they proved futile. He also accompanied the appellant on few occasions to the house of the respondent's parents to persuade her to live with the appellant but she declined to come and live with her husband without any just cause. In cross examination, this witness has admitted that Bur Singh, father of the appellant, lodged a report in the police station to the effect that Gujjar Singh, father of the respondent, along with some others had come in order to murder the appellant who was not prepared to withdraw the present petition. Ultimately it was settled that the respondent would be sent to the house of the appellant and Bur Singh would not proceed with the complaint. This witness had assured the police that the appellant would not maltreat the respondent. It may, however, be stated that the incident which this witness is alluding to relates to the visit of the brother of the respondent to the house of the appellant. According to the version given by the respondent her brother had gone in a tractor to the house of the appellant with the idea of effecting a compromise when Bur Singh lodged a report with the police which took out proceedings under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. The correctness of this version can also be inferred from the questions which were put in cross -examination to Gujjar Singh R.W. 8, the father of the respondent. The learned trial Judge drew an inference from the statement of this witness that unless the appellant had been guilty of meting out cruel treatment to the respondent there would have been no necessity for this witness to stand a surety for good behaviour on the part of the appellant for the period when the respondent lived with the appellant. As a matter of law, I cannot find any fault with the course adopted by the learned trial Court but prudence requires that a hurried inference of misbehaviour on the part of the husband need not be drawn on such a solitary instance, for otherwise people would be reluctant to intervene for effecting a compromise between the errant spouses. Of course, an incidence of this type can be utilized as a corroborative factor of the other evidence which shows cruelly or neglect on the part of the husband. The evidence given by this witness appears to be shaky. In cross -examination he has admitted that no person was associated by the Panchayat visiting the house of the parents of the respondent from village Dallanwala. Even though the evidence shows that Sher Singh, brother of the respondent, visited the house of the appellant on the tractor when Bur Singh lodged a report with the police, this witness attributed the visit to Gujjar Singh, the father of the respondent. The Panchayat is said to have stayed at the house of Zora Singh of village Dallanwala. Zora Singh has not been produced to corroborate the statement of this witness. I am of the view that the evidence regarding the taking of a Panchayat by the appellant to the house of the respondent's parents is not worth any credence. Mohinder Singh P.W. 2 is another witness from the appellant's village. He has stated that the appellant never maltreated the respondent who deserted him for the last time one year back. When questioned why the respondent exhibited such a behaviour he came out with an explanation that she wanted the appellant to get a mutation of his land registered in her name. He has, however, admitted that it was Sher Singh's visit to the appellant's house which led Bur Singh to file a report with the police. This witness belongs to the village of the appellant and has tried to set up a case for the appellant which I do not find in his petition.