LAWS(P&H)-1978-7-31

JAIPAL SINGH Vs. RANI DEVI

Decided On July 25, 1978
JAIPAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
RANI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rani Devi was married to Jaipal Singh on 25th April, 1974 at Amritsar. On 15th December, 1975, Rani Devi presented petition for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of the District Judge, Amritsar, alleging that her husband Jaipal Singh was suffering from venereal disease in communicable form and whenever she refused his company, he beat her mercilessly. During the proceedings Rani Devi also applied for maintenance pendente lite and for litigation expenses. The trial Court ordered Jaipal Singh to pay Rs. 100/- to Rani Devi as litigation expenses and Rs. 60/- P.M. as maintenance pendente lite during the pendency of the application. Jaipal Singh got adjournments for paying the aforesaid amount but did not pay any money nor filed the written statement. Rani Devi was then directed to produce her evidence in support of the main petition. She gave her own statement and examined her father Ramesh Chand.

(2.) Rani Devi stating that she got married with Jaipal Singh on 25th April, 1974, that Jaipal Singh was suffering from venereal disease, that whenever he cohabited with her that caused her wounds and she had to suffer from immense pain and that when she refused his company, he used to show her knife and forced her to cohabit with him. She further stated that Jaipal Singh was addicted to drinking and used to beat her. Ramesh Chand, A.W. 1, stated that he had received a letter from her daughter intimating that she was being maltreated by her husband, that he came to Chandigarh and took her with him to Amritsar, where she is still living with him since August, 1975. He further stated that Smt. Rani Devi had complained to him that her husband had been mercilessly beating her after taking liquor and that he had been suffering from venereal disease.

(3.) The trial Court held that Jaipal Singh was suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form and has treated the petitioner-respondent with such cruelty so as to cause reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful for her to live and cohabit with him.