RANJIT KAUR Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, challenges judgment and decree dated 11.04.2013, recorded by the Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, allowing the petition for divorce filed by the respondent and dissolving the marriage of the parties, on the ground of cruelty. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and decree are not sustainable in fact or in law. The finding of cruelty is primary based upon the facts that the appellant is facing a trial for the murder of the respondent's father (her father-inlaw), an alleged extra marital affair with Harvinder Sharma, refusal to cook meals for the appellant and his family members and failure to appear at the stage of second motion in proceedings, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Counsel for the appellant submits that it is true that the appellant was tried for the murder of her father-in-law but the Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, has acquitted her and Harvinder Sharma in Sessions Case No.07, dated 12.02.2013, decided on 23.05.2014. The finding of cruelty based on the fact that the appellant is facing a criminal trial is, therefore, no longer sustainable. Counsel for the appellant further submits that an FIR was lodged by Harvinder Singh son of the respondent against some unknown persons, alleging the murder of the respondent's father.

(2.) The respondent, however, in league with the police manipulated the investigation and got the appellant arrested but the appellant was released as no case was made out against her. The respondent, thereafter, filed a private complaint in which the appellant and Harwinder Sharma were summoned and arraigned as accused. A perusal of judgment dated 23.05.2014, acquitting the appellant, reveals that witnesses produced by the prosecution to prove a conspiracy to murder and the illicit relationship between the appellant and Harwinder Sharma, have been disbelieved. The Additional Sessions Judge has also noticed that even the Investigating Officer found the appellant and her co-accused were innocent and in an enquiry conducted by DSP Pritpal Singh, no evidence was found against them. Sarwan Singh who has been examined as PW4 in the present case, deposed as PW2 in the criminal Trial but was disbelieved. Even otherwise, the statement by PW4 Sarwan Singh, a neighbour, is devoid of any particulars or relevant facts that could prove the alleged extra marital relationship between the appellant and Harvinder Sharma. The statements made by the respondent and his witnesses, namely, PW2 Kehar Singh and PW3 Satinderjit Singh are general in nature, self serving in content and do not prove, the allegation of an illicit relationship with Harvinder Sharma. The judgment in Jhabar Mal v. Guddi @ Kamla, 2002 2 HinduLR 325 relied by the trial court to hold that even if the appellant is acquitted, cruelty is proved as the respondent cannot be expected to live with the appellant, is perverse as in the aforesaid case the the dautherin-law had been convicted for the murder of her mother-in-law and was undergoing a sentence. The acquittal of the appellant for these false charges proves that the respondent and not the appellant was cruel. The appellant cannot be punished for standing trial for a murder of which she has been acquitted.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant further submits that the inference of cruelty based upon the fact that the appellant did not appear before the court at the stage of second motion, in a petition, filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') disregards the fact that the appellant was facing a criminal trial and even otherwise the entire amount was never paid to the appellant. The appellant was, therefore, well within her right to refuse to proceed with the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act. The finding that the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty by refusing to cook food for the respondent and his family members is based upon a vague self serving statement made by the respondent without any particulars of this incident and even if a wife refuses to cook food for a husband, such an act cannot by itself be construed as cruelty, sufficient to dissolve the marriage.