Jagtar Singh vs Jyoti

Navita Singh, J.—File has been received from the Mediation and Conciliation Centre functioning in the High Court premises, as the appellant did not appear on 25.03.2014 and learned counsel for the respondent informed that the respondent had refused to join the mediation proceedings any further.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-husband Jagtar Singh against the ex parte judgment and decree dated 03.09.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, in a petition filed by the respondent-wife Jyoti u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act-for short).

The facts, put briefly, are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 03.05.2009 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Kalesar, District Kaithal. The marriage was consummated, but no child was born out of the wedlock. Sufficient dowry was given by the parents of the respondent, but the appellant and his family members were not happy and immediately after the marriage started taunting and harassing the respondent saying that she had brought insufficient dowry. They started demanding colour television and Rs. 5,000/- in cash. The parents of the respondent paid Rs. 5,000/- at one point of time and Rs. 10,000/- at another, but the appellant and his family was still not satisfied. He was a drug addict and used to consume opium and charas etc. and used to beat the respondent under intoxication. On 10.09.2009, the respondent was badly beaten by the appellant and was turned out of the matrimonial home and since then she was living with her parents. Panchayats were convened to resolve the matter, but to no avail.

The appellant appeared and filed reply to the petition alleging that all the allegations against him were false. On an application filed u/s 24 of the Act, which was contested by the appellant, the Court below made an order directing the husband to pay Rs. 2,500/- to the wife as interim maintenance. He, however, did not pay the maintenance. He was proceeded against ex parte. On his application, the order vide which he was proceeded against ex parte, was set aside, subject to the condition that he would pay arrears on the next date. However, the appellant did not comply with the order and his defence was struck off. Later on, vide order dated 19.08.2013, he was proceeded against ex parte, whereafter evidence of the respondent was taken and matter was disposed of. The trial Court by that time had framed issues but did not mention in the judgment as to what were issues were framed and did not give the findings as per those issues because the matter was ultimately decided ex parte against the appellant. However, for record the issues are reproduced as under:-

Whether the petitioner (now respondent) is entitled to a decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion and cruelty on the part of respondent (now appellant) u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act? OPP

Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR

Whether the petitioner (now respondent) has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPR.

Relief.

Believing the evidence led by the respondent, which went unrebutted, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the relations between the parties were very strained and the wife had been turned out of the matrimonial home by the husband and she had been treated cruelly on account of dowry. It was further observed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and there was no chance of any reconciliation between the parties.

When the appeal came up for the first time, the appellant contended that he was willing to pay the arrears of maintenance in installments and also the litigation expenses. Notice of motion was, therefore, issued vide order dated 30.10.2013 with a direction to the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses and he was also called upon to pay the arrears of maintenance from 14.10.2011 till 03.09.2013. Further direction was given to pay the litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the trial Court. He was, however, given concession of paying the amount in equal installments of Rs. 5,000/- per month each. The first installment was to be paid on the adjourned date i.e. 11.12.2013. On the next date, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was tendered in cash as litigation expenses which the respondent received without prejudice to her rights. However, further amount of Rs. 5,000/- as first installment towards arrears of maintenance was not paid. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre functioning in the High Court premises. On the first date fixed before the Mediator, the parties failed to appear and the matter was adjourned. On the next date, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- in cash to the respondent and the matter was adjourned further. The parties did not appear and the next installment of Rs. 5,000/- was also not paid on behalf of the appellant. On further date fixed by the Mediator, the appellant did not appear and it was informed by his sister that he had met with an accident, while, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent informed that the respondent had refused to join the mediation proceedings.

Admitted fact is that the appellant failed to pay the arrears of maintenance even though he was given permission to pay the same in installments. He did not appear before the Mediator on the last date fixed in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre i.e. 25.03.2014 and also did not appear in Court today.

Learned counsel for the appellant has not given any reason today as to why the appellant is not appearing and as to why the arrears of maintenance are not being paid. Relying upon the record of the case, he gracefully admitted that there is no evidence on the part of the appellant and also that the appellant having not paid the arrears of maintenance before the trial Court and here, has no legs to stand on. He could not show anything for successfully assailing the order of the Court below so as to make out a case for reversal of the judgment and decree.

Since no effort was made by the appellant to pay the arrears of maintenance either before the trial Court or before this Court and he did not challenge the order dated 19.08.2013 vide which he was proceeded against ex parte, it remains a fact that the order of the trial Court is intact and there is no intention on the part of the appellant to pay the arrears of maintenance.

The respondent appeared as PW 1 and stated about the cruelty suffered by her at the hands of the appellant and his family. Her mother appeared as PW 2 and corroborated the testimony of her daughter i.e. the respondent. Raju (PW 3) is the neighbourer of the respondent, who too supported her version.

Thus, on merits as well, there is nothing which may call for interfering in the impugned judgment and decree because the trial Court appreciated the evidence led by the respondent-wife in the right perspective and correctly granted a decree of divorce to the wife.

The appeal is dismissed.