Dismissed

Bant Singh v. Rajwinder Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Apr 2013FAO-M/110/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a family court order that rejected a husband's divorce petition alleging cruelty. The court upheld the lower court's finding that no specific instances of cruelty were proved by the appellant. The application for condonation of delay was held academic.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and the application for condonation of delay were dismissed.

Bant Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

FAO No. M-110 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No. M-110 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.04.2013

Bant Singh

..... Appellant

Versus

Rajwinder Kaur

..... Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BANGARH

¶11

Present: Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

S.S. SARON, J.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶14

The appeal has been filed by Bant Singh against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Moga, whereby, his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act-for short) seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed. Alongwith the appeal CM No. 8099-CII of 2013 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 113 days in filing the appeal.

¶15

FAO No. M-110 of 2013 (O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 09.12.2001 at village Chuhar Chak, Tehsil and Distt Moga by way of Anand Karaj ceremony. Parties lived as husband and wife and a son namely Prabhjot Singh was born from the marriage on 12.09.2002. The appellant filed a petition alleging that the respondent was a strong headed lady and used to quarrel with him and his family members on petty matters. Besides, after about two years of the marriage the respondent had left the society of the appellant without any reason and started residing separately. The respondent again joined the society of the appellant on his request on 02.03.2008. However, just after about one and a half year, she again left the society of the appellant on 07.08.2009, after quarreling with him and his family members. The respondent took all her valuable articles with her at that time.

¶18

The respondent contested the petition, it was alleged that the petition had been filed to harass the respondent because a criminal case i.e. FIR No. 154 dated 29.11.2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 323/325/34 IPC had been registered against the appellant and his family members at Police Station Mehna (now Police Station Ajitwal). It is alleged that the appellant and his family members had treated the respondent with cruelty. The son of the parties was living with the respondent and residing at village Chuhar Chak and maintenance was neither given to the respondent nor to her minor son. From the pleadings of the parties

¶19

FAO No. M-110 of 2013 (O&M)

¶20

-3-

¶21

the following issues were framed:

¶22

Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP.

¶23

Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty? OPP.

¶24

Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR.

¶25

Whether the petitioner has concealed some material facts at the time of filing this petition? OPR.

¶26

Whether the petitioner has got no locus standi to file this petition? OPP.

¶27

Relief.

¶28

The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record found that the appellant had not mentioned any specific incident of cruelty meted out by the respondent to him or his family members. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it was held that the appellant had failed to prove any act of cruelty on the part of the respondent against the appellant. Accordingly, it was held that the respondent had never treated the appellant with cruelty and that he was not entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that FIR was registered against the appellant and his family members on 29.11.2009, whereas the petition for divorce was filed on 16.10.2009, therefore, it was wrongly urged by the respondent that the petition for divorce had been filed to harass the respondent because of the criminal case. It is submitted that the learned trial Court was influenced by the said wrong assertion of the respondent.

¶30

FAO No. M-110 of 2013 (O&M)

¶31

-4-

¶32

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that the learned trial Court has held that the appellant had not mentioned any specific incident of cruelty meted out by the respondent to him or his family members. During the course of hearing we asked the learned counsel for the appellant to give any specific instance where the respondent is said to have treated the appellant with cruelty. He has not been able to mention any instance. The FIR that was lodged against the appellant and his family members was only a ground that was urged by the respondent in her defence. The findings of the learned trial Court are not based on the same. Even, otherwise, it may be noticed that before registration of the FIR some conciliatory efforts must have been made by the police in the Crime Against Women cell. It may be during the said proceedings that the appellant apprehended that a FIR was likely to be registered and he filed a petition for divorce on 16.10.2009. It may also be noticed that according to the appellant himself the respondent had left him on 07.08.2009 after quarreling with him and his family members. Thereafter, no efforts were made by the appellant to reconcile the matter and the petition for divorce was filed straightway on 16.10.2009, that is, after about only two months of separation between the parties.

¶33

Therefore, from the facts and circumstances on record we find that the learned Additional District Judge has recorded cogent and convincing reasons for dismissing the petition filed by the

¶34

FAO No. M-110 of 2013 (O&M)

¶35

-5-

¶36

appellant and we find no ground to interfere with the same.

¶37

Keeping in view the fact that there is no merit in the appeal, the question of delay in filing the appeal is only academic.

¶38

Consequently, the appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay of 113 days in the filing the appeal, are dismissed.

¶39

(S.S. SARON) JUDGE

¶40

(S.P. BANGARH) JUDGE

¶41

April 02, 2013 sham

Bant Singh v. Rajwinder Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bant Singh v. Rajwinder Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hardev Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Divya Vs Vipin Sangwan

Hamir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Devi Dayal Vs Renu

Rajinder Singh Vs Armed Forces Tribunal & Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs Ranjit Kaur