Ranjit Kaur alias Rani vs Jaswant Singh

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 15.9.1992, rendered by the Additional District Judge,

Amritsar, whereby petition filed by the respondent for divorce was allowed on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

Marriage between the parties took place on 19.3.1983 and a male child was born out of the wedlock in the last week of April 1984, but

unfortunately the child died. Divorce petition was filed by the respondent husband on 26.8.1987 alleging that the respondentappellant wife is

employed as a Clerk in the Electricity Department and her behaviour towards the appellant was cruel, harsh and insulting. It was further alleged

that respondentappellant declared that she could not live jointly with the parents of the respondent, which he could not agree being in a transferable

job (Head Constable in the Punjab Police). It was further alleged that in March 1984, appellant''s mother visited the respondent''s family and took

her daughter away on the pretext that the first child should be born in the house of the appellant''s mother. Thereafter, the appellant did not return,

inspite of efforts of the respondent. It was also alleged that the appellant wife was writing letters/complaints to the higher authorities of the police

against the respondent causing harassment and embarrassment. The appellant wife contested the petition and alleged that the respondent and

married with one Manjit Kaur, who gave birth to a female child from the loins of the respondent. The respondent amended the petition to plead

that this allegation of the appellant was totally false. The trial Court accepted the version of the respondent and held that the appellant has not been

able to prove the allegation and granted the decree of divorce. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal is preferred.

The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Finding that no compromise could be

arrived, the matter has been sent back for decision on merits.

I have gone through the record and am of the view that the trial Court was in error in holding that a finding about the second marriage could not

be recorded merely on the statement of the appellantwife, which is supported by the statements of RW1 Ranjit Kaur, RW2 Daropati, RW3

Darshan Kaur and RW4 Ajit Singh. The standard of proof required in a matrimonial case for proving that the husband had married another woman

or was living with another woman is not the same as is required for proving the offence of bigamy. In a petition for divorce, on the ground of

desertion, the respondent can always show justification for living separately by showing that the petitioner himself was guilty of any of the grounds

on which divorce could be obtained. The trial Court appears to have kept in mind the standards of proof required for proving an offence in a

criminal case i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt. Applying the standard of proof required in matrimonial cases, there is no reason to reject the

version of the appellant wife that the respondent had remarried. She has entered the witness box as RW1 and is supported by evidence of RW2,

RW3 and RW4. The appellant had also named the girl, with whom the respondent had married and had also given other particulars. I, therefore,

set aside the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 2A and hold that the appellant has proved that the respondent and married or was otherwise

living with another woman and her allegations to this effect could not amount to cruelty. also set aside the finding on issue No. 2B that this

allegation amounted to cruelty. I am also unable to sustain the finding of the trial Court that the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty and

was guilty of desertion as held by the trial Court under issues No. 1 and 2.

In view of the above, I accept this appeal and set aside the decree of divorce granted by the trial court and dismiss the divorce petition filed by the

respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.