TIRLOK SINGH Vs. RAJ KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is an unfortunate dispute between husband and wife. Tirlok Singh, the present appellant, was a divorcee. The respondent, his wife, was a widow. They were married on October 8, 1981. On January 16, 1983 a daughter was born out of this marriage. Since March 1984, the parties are in Court.

(2.) THE appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. One of the issues before the Court was - "Whether the respondent Raj Kaur is guilty of cruelty as alleged in the petition ?" OPA - (this issue will also cover the allegation of the respondent that the petitioner was cruel to her). The petitioner had examined eight witnesses to prove his claim. At that stage by an order dated October 18, 1984 the learned trial Court closed his evidence. Thereafter on examination of the matter, the learned trial Court held that the allegations of cruelty made by the husband had not been categorically denied. These were proved by the evidence. Consequently, a decree of divorce was granted. The respondent-wife appealed. The learned Single Judge reversed the decision with the observation that "on pleadings alone. ... the allegations of cruelty could not be held to have been proved". It was further found that "the respondent himself (the present appellant), appearing as AW-2, no doubt has narrated the aforesaid incidents but corroboration of the same is conspicuous by its absence". Thus, the appeal was accepted. In this situation, the husband has filed the Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) A perusal of the record of the trial Court shows that the appellant had produced four witnesses on September 10, 1984. On that date, the case was adjourned to October 17, 1984, On this date, the Court postponed the matter to October 18, 1984. On the said date, the statements of four witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the evidence of the petitioner, the present appellant, was "closed by order". The case was adjourned for the evidence of the respondent. Mr. Sarin submits that the evidence was not closed on account of any lapse on the part of the appellant. It was closed by the Court only on account of the fact that in its view the allegations had not been clearly denied by the respondent-wife. It is clear that no such reason is apparent from the record. Yet the fact remains that the evidence had been closed by order. In our view, in the circumstances of the case, it would be just and fair to allow the appellant an opportunity to adduce such other evidence as he may wish to.