Smt. Kusam Latta vs Hari Charan

Gopal Singh, J.—This is appeal by Smt. Kusam Latta against her husband Hari Charan from the judgment of the District Judge, Karnal dated June (sic), 1970 allowing petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed on behalf of the husband against the wife, Facts leading to the appeal are as under:-

The parties are residents of Karnal. They were married there on June 3, 1967. According to the allegations made by the husband in his petition filed on February 1, 1969, the wife withdrew from the society of the husband on November 20, 1968 on the pretext that she had to attend the betrothal ceremony of her brother at Delhi and in fact no betrothal ceremony was performed and it was at the instance of her parents that she left his house without any genuine reason. It is stated in that petition that she left the house in the absence of the husband and took away along with her jewellery, which belonged to the husband and which was in her possession apart from the jewellery of the mother of the husband. It is the case of the husband that after his wife left him, he approached her parents and requested them for her return to him. Before filing the petition the husband served a notice upon the father of the wife saying that she had left him without any just cause and that she be sent back to his house. The father of the wife replied that it is on account of his cruel treatment and his persistence to extract money from her parents that she had left the house.

The petition of the husband was opposed by the wife on the ground that the husband treated her with cruelty, that he was a drunkard and a gambler, that be coerced her to squeeze money for him from her parents and that she had the apprehension of being done to death by him and consequently she left his house and started living with her parents.

On the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

(1) Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable cause?

(2) Whether the respondent has been treated by the petitioner with so much cruelty that it would not be safe for her to live in his house?

Evidence was led by the parties in support of these issues. The trial Court discussed both the issues together and gave the findings that the wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without any reasonable cause and that the wife had not been treated by the husband with cruelty to render unsafe her living with the husband.

I find from the evidence led on behalf of the parties that the findings of the trial Court are well founded. On behalf of the husband there appeared Lakhmi Chand A.W. 1, Mam Raj A.W. 2, Bhola Singh A.W. 3, Atma Ram A.W. 4, Bhagwat Sarup A.W. 5, Om Parkash A. W. 6, Som Datt A.W. 7 and the husband as A.W. 8 in support of issue No. 1 and repudiation of the plea covered by issue No. 2. To prove issue No. 2 and to controvert issue No. 1, the wife led evidence of Bhagat Ram R.W. 1, Kunwar Bhan R.W. 2 and Kehar Singh R.W. 5 She hersall went into the witness box as R.W. 4.

Shri R.M. Suri appearing on behalf of the wife contended that the evidence on the record justifies the inference that she had withdrawn from the society of the husband because of her having been treated cruelly by the husband. He urged that the husband had failed to prove that she had withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuse.

After the marriage, the husband and the wife lived together for four or five mouths at Panipat in the house tenanted from Lakhmi Chand A.W. 1 During that period, the husband served as a Process Server in the Court at Panipat. The witness says that he did not notice any estrangement or ill will between the two much less any maltreatment or the part of the husband to the wife. He averred that both had been living together harmoniously and happily and he never heard exchange of any hot words between the two. The evidence of this witness was sought to be discredited by asking from him in course of cross-examination as to whether he was the nephew of the aunt of father of the husband. The witness emphatically denied the suggestion The wife, however, while in the witness box stated that the witness was so related to the father of the husband. It is very difficult to come to the conclusion in the face of these contradictory assertions by these two witnesses that the witness was the nephew of the aunt of the father of the husband. When confronted with this denial, it was obligatory on the wife either to pursue the matter further in course of cross examination of this witness and to establish that relationship or to lead independent evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that that relationship did exist.

Mam Raj A.W. 2 is neighbour of the husband at Karnal. He also vouchsafed to the fact that from the date of marraige uptil the date the wife left the house of the husband, he never saw any quarrel between the two. As against the allegation of the wife that the husband was a drunkard, a gambler and a debauch, the witness stated that be had never seen him in a state of intoxication or bring girls to his house and that he was a man of good character.

The house of Bhola Singh A.W. 3 is hardly at a distance of 100 yards from the house of the husband. He denied that the couple had ever quarrelled with each other and that be never saw him drunk or heard of his being addicted to drinking or having moved in the company of women other than his own wife. This witness retired as Clerk of Court of the office of the District Judge. Apart from being resident in the proximate locality of the house in which the couple resided, he is a respectable and responsible witness having retired as a Clerk of Court from the office of District Judge. The trial Court expressed doubt about the credibility of Bhola Singh on the ground that grand-father of the husband had appeared as a witness for Bhola Singh and that the witness appeared now to square up that obligation. Considering the status of that witness. I do not think there is any justification for the evidence of this witness being discarded.

The next witness produced is Atma Ram A.W. 4. He has his house opposite to the house of the husband and hence in a position to know the relations that exists between the couple. He denied that any stranger woman had ever been brought by the husband to his house or that he ever drank or gambled. He also denied that the mother of the husband had ever picked up any quarrel with the wife.

Bhagwat Sarup A.W. 5 is the father of the husband. He denied that his son ever drank, gambled or moved about with any woman other than his own wife, He denied that his son had ever beaten his wife. He stated that it is the parents of the wife, who are responsible for ruination of the home and happiness of the couple.

The above witnesses are quite natural witnesses. The first four have been or are neighbours of the husband and hence in a position to know the relations that existed between the husband and the wife and none of them appears to be interested so as to go out of his way and to unnecessarily support the case of the husband.

Om Parkash A.W. 6 is admittedly one of the members of brotherhood of Kehar Singh, father of the wife. He has also stated that the husband and wife had been living with each other in a cordial manner.

The next witness produced by the husband is Som Datt A.W. 7. He is responsible for bringing about the matrimonial alliance between the husband and the wife and as such equally situated to either. This fact has been admitted by the father of the wife Kehar Singh R.W. 5. Considering that the sister of this witness is married to the brother of the wife, he is a close relation of the wife. This witness deposed to the facts that the wife was never beaten by the husband, that she had never been turned out of the house by him, that she never complained to him either about the cruel treatment meted cut to her by the husband or about her having been turned out by hi n from his house. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the evidence of this witness, especially when he belongs more to the side of the wife then to that of the husband.

The husband as A.W. 8 gave the evidence that the wife left his house in his absence under the pretext of attending the betrothal ceremony of her brother. He asserted that that betrothal in fact did not take place. He also denied that he had ever given her beating and cruelly treated her. He repudiated the suggestion of the wife and stated that he never drank, gambled or moved about with any other woman.

Now I come to the oral evidence produced on behalf of the wife. The witnesses produced on behalf of the wife have made allegations pertaining to the cruel treatment, which was being given by the husband to the wife. Bhagat Ram R.W. 1 is not the neighbour of the husband but neighbour of Kehar Singh father of the wife He stated that the husband had cruelly treated the wife. The house, in which the parents of the wife resided is at a distance of 400 yards from the house of the parents of the husband. It is very unlikely that he could know whether there had or had not been any beating by the husband to his wife and that too in the house of the former. This witness has stated that he came to know about the cruel treatment meted out by the husband to the wife when on enquiry by his mother, the wife told that she had been given beating by her husband. His statement about the beating being hearsay and not founded upon any personal observation or direct knowledge carries no evidentiary value.

Kanwar Bhan R.W. 2 is a retired constable. Kehar Singh is also a retired constable. This witness too has given the source of information about the beating by the husband to his wife to be the father of the husband. It is added by him that it is so stated by the father of the husband because he thought that the wife was a source of nuisance to his family and that his son was not prepared to keep her in his house and consequently had thrown her out.

Kehar Singh, father of the wife has appeared as R.W. 5. He is highly interested in his daughter. He has not stated that he saw on any particular occasion his daughter being beaten or cruelly treated by the husband while she was staying with him.

The wife as R.W. 4 has reiterated the stand taken by her in her written statement that it was under the stress of being repeatedly beaten and cruelly treated that she left the house of her husband and that she had not without any rhyme or reason withdrawn herself from the society of the husband.

Apart from the above oral evidence, the parties have also produced documentary evidence. After the wife left the house of her husband on November (sic), 1968, the husband served notice dated January 4, 1969 marked A.W. 8/2 on the fattier of the wife saying that she had left his house under the pretext of attending the betrothal ceremony of her brother, that in fact no betrothal came off, that she had left his house along with the jewellery belonging to the husband and that she was not being restored to him in spite of attempts made by approaching and beseeching her father Kehar Singh. In reply to that notice, Kehar Singh wrote back by reply dated January 16, 1969 Exhibit A.W. 8/3 communicating that it was on account of cruel treatment given by the husband to the wife that she had to leave the house of the husband and that she had not left the house of her husband on the pretext of attending the betrothal ceremony of her brother Strangely enough, there were written three letters by Kehar Singh addressed to the husband and yet in none of them there is any reference to any cruel treatment having ever been accorded by the husband to the wife. The first letter that followed the reply sent on behalf of Kehar Singh is dated March 12, 1969, Exhibit A.W. 8/5. The letter is addressed to the husband in affectionate tone. There is no suggestion even remotely about any cruel treatment of the wife on the part of the husband It is stated that when the wife of Kehar Singh that is mother-in law of the husband would come back, he would be addressed a letter implying thereby that he would be informed about the wife being sent back to the husband. The next letter is dated April 8, 1969, Exhibit A.W. 8/6. It is also in loving terms. In that letter, it has been stated that the husband would be intimated soon after the arrival of the wife of Kehar Singh and his daughter. The letter too does not in any way refer to anything about the existence of any ill-will or complain about the cruel treatment said to have been given by the husband to the wif. Its contents show that the letter written on behalf of the husband to the father of the wife, to which this letter was a reply, reflects anxiety on the part of the husband to have the hand of his wife restored to him. The third letter is dated April 26, (sic), Exhibit A.W. 8/1. It is a letter, by which an invitation has been thrown by the father of the wife to the husband and his father to attend the marriage of son of Kehar Singh to come off on May 5, 1969. If the husband had been treating the wife with cruelty and the cruelty would have been of such a character so as to make it difficult for the wife to stay in the house of the husband, the invitation issued showing that there existed cordial relations between the parties, could not have been extended to the husband or to his father. These three letters by no person other than the father of the wife, with whom she continued to stay after she left the hearth and home of the husband, could not have been addressed in endearing language, in which these are couched, and do not throw any suggestion of there having existed any estrangement between the husband and the wife consequent upon the cruel treatment claimed by the wife to have been meted out to her at the hands of her husband.

The above discussion of the oral and documentary evidence leaves no doubt that the wife, has left the husband without any reasonable excuse and that she has failed to establish that it is because of the cruel treatment meted out to her that she parted company of her husband. It is admitted by her that she left the house, of her husband and not that he turned her out. The reason assigned by her is the cruel conduct of the husband. Thus, she had to lead convincing evidence to make good that plea. The evidence of both the parties considered cumulatively persuades the Court to come to the conclusion that the wife withdrew from the society of the husband and that she has not been proved to have been cruelly treated.

Under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act read in conjunction with Section 9, it is indispensably necessary that the following two ingredients should have been proved by the wife in the present case:-

(i) that she had been treated by the husband with cruelty;

(ii) that that cruelty was of such a character so as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that it would be harmful or injurious for the wife to live with the husband.

As regards the first ingredient both the wife and her father have stated though without much effect that the husband had been cruel to her but it is neither in the evidence of the wife nor in that of the husband of any other witness produced on behalf of both the parties to show that the cruelty committed by the husband was of such a nature and to an extent that it could cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that it would be harmful or injurious for the wife to live with the husband. The wife has miserably failed to establish the second ingredient. She could succeed only in her plea raised under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, if she had filed evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that the cruelty, which was being committed against her, was of such a type that it could cause reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with her husband would have been harmful or injurious. Apart from the view I have already expressed about both issues Nos. 1 and 2, the plea of the wife as raised by issue No. 2 about the cruel treatment of the husband must fail on that score.

For the foregoing reasons, I disallow the appeal with no order as to costs.