Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2021 OF 2010
Ravinder Kaur .…Appellant(s)
Versus
Manjeet Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. …. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
1. The appellant herein is the wife of the original
respondent who died during the pendency of this appeal.
Since the order impugned passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana dated 23.08.2006 in F.A.O.No.101
M of 1999 had allowed the appeal and dissolved the
marriage, the marital status of the appellant is in issue
Signature Not Verified
notwithstanding the death of respondent. As such, the
Digitally signed by
MAHABIR SINGH
Date: 2019.08.21
14:11:46 IST
Reason:
cause of action has continued to subsist and the legal
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 1 of 16
representatives namely, the daughter and sons of the
deceased respondent were allowed to be brought on
record by this Court through the order dated 05.09.2014
passed in IA No.3 of 2012. In that light, the instant
appeal was heard in that backdrop. In that situation
the reference made during the course of the order to the
respondent would in effect refer to the original
respondent, namely the deceased husband of the
appellant.
2. The respondent herein instituted the proceedings
in H.M.A. File No.133 of 16.12.1995 through the petition
filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking
dissolution of the marriage which was solemnized
between the appellant and respondent during December,
1970 as per the Sikh rites. As on the date of filing the
petition the parties had spent 25 years of married life and
had be gotten two sons and a daughter from the wedlock,
who were also grown up. At that stage the petition was
filed by the respondenthusband seeking dissolution of
the marriage alleging mental cruelty inflicted upon him
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 2 of 16
by the appellant herein. The parties herein though had
resided in Ludhiana till 1988, had shifted to Bathinda
thereafter. When this was the position, since the
respondent was serving in the Armed Forces, he was
posted at Nagaland in the year 1989 and was thereafter
posted at Manipur till 1992. From the pleading as put
forth before the District Court in the petition, the trigger
for the dispute between the parties arose at the point
when the appellant and the children had gone over to
stay with the respondent at Manipur. According to the
respondent herein he was suffering from gastric and
related problems and due to his illness, a Punjabi family
of Capt. Inderjit Singh looked after the petitioner. In
that circumstance due to the affinity of the family the
said Capt. Inderjit Singh is said to have sent his wife and
children along with the respondent to Bathinda and they
remained there while the respondent had taken
treatment. Subsequent thereto all of them including the
appellant and the children had also gone back to
Manipur. Though the families were known to each other
in that manner, according to the respondent the
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 3 of 16
appellant herein started levelling baseless allegations
against the respondent herein and his father. The wife of
Capt. Inderjit Singh had conveyed this aspect to Capt.
Inderjit Singh who thereafter told the respondent. The
said incident is stated to have been raised by the
respondent herein in the presence of the appellant to
clarify the situation, but the appellant herein started
shouting at the respondent and also alleged that the
respondent herein had illegitimate relationship with the
wife of Capt. Inderjit Singh.
3. The further details which led to the
misunderstanding between the appellant and the
respondent is adverted to in the petition filed before the
court below. The respondent was thereafter posted at
Amritsar and according to the respondent even at that
point whenever the respondent visited Bathinda where
the appellant and two sons were staying, the appellant
again raised the said issue and made false allegations
and also had sent the sons and a friend to keep a watch
over the activities of the respondent. Certain other
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 4 of 16
incidents which had taken place in Amritsar are referred
to in the petition, which need not be elaborated herein.
Apart from the same, the respondent has contended that
the appellant had intentionally lodged a false report
against the respondent to the S.P.(Operations) Bathinda
due to which a case under Section 107/151 of Cr.PC.
was registered and the father of the respondent as also
the respondent were arrested and the proceedings were
held. In addition, the appellant herein is stated to have
filed a suit against the respondent seeking declaration
and permanent injunction with regard to the House
No.22, Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda wherein she had
alleged that the respondent had defrauded her. In that
view the respondent herein had contended in the petition
that the said acts of the appellant had amounted to
mental cruelty and therefore had sought for dissolution of
the marriage.
4. The appellant herein who was the respondent had
filed detailed objections disputing the averments put
forth by the respondent herein in his petition. Insofar as
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 5 of 16
the incident relating to House No.22, Kamla Nehru
Colony, Bathinda it was contended that the plot was
allotted to the appellant in 1987 and the construction
was put up after obtaining money from the father of the
appellant, after which they were residing along with their
two sons. The appellant has further referred to the
nature of relationship the respondent herein was
maintaining with Mrs. Nirmaljit Kaur wife of Capt.
Inderjit Singh, regarding which she had raised objections
and despite the same they were living in the same room
of the house belonging to the appellant. Certain
incidents in that regard are referred to in her objection
statement so as to justify her action. Insofar as the
action initiated by the appellant by lodging a complaint to
the police, it is contended that in July, 1995 the
respondent along with the relations came to the house of
the appellant, began to attack her, removed the articles
from the house and was forcing her to vacate the house.
It is in that view she had approached the police
authorities pursuant to which the action was taken. In
that light it was contended by the appellant that the act
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 6 of 16
of the respondent herein in fact would amount to
inflicting cruelty on the appellant herein and not as
alleged by the respondent.
5. The trial court in that light proceeded to consider
as to whether the appellant herein had treated the
respondent with cruelty and as to whether the appellant
had deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of two
years. While taking note of the same the trial court has
referred to the pleadings of both sides and has taken note
of the nature of allegations that were in fact made by the
respondenthusband against the appellantwife by
securing the evidence of the witness Sri Daya Singh as
PW1, to state that the appellant herein had illegitimate
relations with the driver named Swarna. To that effect
the plea taken by the respondent about such relationship
when they were residing in Ludhiana has been referred
and the incident was sought to be raised through the
evidence of the said Sri Daya SinghPW1. The trial court
has thereafter referred to the evidence of another witness
on behalf of the respondent herein namely Col. M.S.
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 7 of 16
Sidhu, a colleague and in that regard having referred to
his evidence has indicated that his evidence is not
trustworthy going by the very nature in which he has
referred to every aspect as if he was privy to all matters of
the family. In that background the trial court had
thought it fit to rely on the evidence of Pritam Singh who
was examined as RW1, a resident of Gobindgarh as also
the evidence of Gurudayal who was examined as RW2.
6. The incident as stated by the respondent herein as
the petitioner before the court below by examining
himself as PW6 was referred and the entire narration
relating to relationship with Smt. Nirmaljit Kaur was
taken note. In addition the trial court has made a
detailed reference to the evidence of the other witness
who had been examined before it, the details of which
need not be adverted to herein. However, it is seen that
the trial court on such basis had taken note that the
entire issue revolves around the allegations said to have
been made by the appellant against the respondent by
calling the relationship as an illegitimate affair. To that
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 8 of 16
extent the evidence of one of the sons of the parties Shri
Iqbaal Singh who was examined as RW6 was taken note,
wherein he has stated that the respondent herein and the
said Smt.Nirmaljit Kaur were behaving like husband and
wife. Insofar as the incident relating to the house which
had resulted in filing the complaint with the police under
Section 107/151 of Cr.PC it was taken note that the
appellant had to take recourse to such proceedings to
protect her right. In that light the trial court having
assessed the totality of the facts and circumstances and
also having taken note about the allegations of
illegitimate affair made by the respondent herein against
the appellant by introducing the name of a person who
did not exist, was of the view that in the existing state of
affairs the incidents as stated by the respondent cannot
be treated as a ground to dissolve the marriage on the
allegations of mental cruelty. Hence, the trial court has
dismissed the petition.
7. In the appeal filed by the respondent herein before
the High Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 9 of 16
counsel for the appellant herein the High Court in fact,
has proceeded in the matter with the preconceived
notion that the marriage is irretrievably broken down and
that the dispute is between a couple who have grown up
married children, which has influenced its decision. In
fact, the High Court while finding fault with the judgment
of the trial court has taken exception to the observations
made by the trial court that the parties were living a
happy married life till the third lady intruded in the life of
the appellant and spoiled the whole family atmosphere.
In that regard it is commented by the High Court that the
trial court has not appreciated the allegations made by
the respondent herein regarding the illegitimate
relationship of the appellantwife with the socalled
driver. The High Court has further observed that it is
noticeable that the appellant had not sought divorce on
the ground of appellantwife having illegitimate relations
with the driver, but this fact has been mentioned in the
petition, which would indicate that the respondent had
condoned. Having taken note of such observations made
by the High Court it gives the impression that the High
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 10 of 16
Court has proceeded on the footing as if the allegations
made by the respondent husband against the appellant
wife had been proved before the trial court.
8. In a proceeding of the present nature when the
respondent herein was contending that the allegations of
illegitimate relationship being made against him had
amounted to mental cruelty and in a situation where the
existence of Smt. Nirmaljit Kaur was not a fiction but
there were two versions to the nature of relationship, the
same cannot be weighed in the same scale when the
allegations against the appellantwife was made by the
respondent about a nonexistent person. If the
respondenthusband is to contend that the allegations of
illegitimate relations made against him has amounted to
mental cruelty, in fact as rightly observed by the trial
court, the bald allegations made by the respondent
against the appellantwife would also amount to the
same. If that be the position insofar as the allegations to
that effect, the trial court had in fact referred to the
evidence in detail and has arrived at the conclusion that
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 11 of 16
the ground of mental cruelty in that regard so as to
dissolve the marriage cannot be accepted.
9. Insofar as the action taken by the appellant herein
to file a police complaint and the proceedings initiated
under Section 107/151 of Cr.PC it is the natural legal
course adopted by respondent to protect her right and
possession of the property. It is not in dispute that at the
point when a complaint was filed and a suit was also
stated to have been filed by the appellant herein on
05.09.1995 there was misunderstanding brewing in the
marital life of the parties and in that circumstance the
appellant herein had adopted the legal course to protect
her rights. Such action taken in accordance with law
cannot, in any event, be considered as inflicting cruelty
as the legal proceedings was used only as a shield
against the assault. In this regard the decision of this
Court in the case of (2015) 11
Ramchander vs. Ananta
SCC 539 relied on by the learned counsel for the
appellant would be relevant, wherein while taking note of
similar instances this Court has held that the same
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 12 of 16
would not amount to cruelty and such instances would
not be convincing enough to lead to a conclusion that the
marriage is irretrievably broken down.
10. In the above background, keeping in view the
nature of allegations made and the evidence tendered in
that regard, we find that the consideration made by the
trial court with reference to the reliability of the evidence
is more appropriate. As already noticed the High Court,
while taking note of the nature of allegations made has
proceeded on the basis that there is irretrievable
breakdown of the marriage. Needless to mention that
irretrievable breakdown of marriage by itself is not a
ground provided under the statute for seeking dissolution
of marriage. To this effect it would be apposite to refer to
the decision rendered by this Court to that effect in the
case of (2009)
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Manju Sharma
6 SCC 379 relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant. No doubt on taking note of the entire material
and evidence available on record, in appropriate cases
the courts may have to bring to an end, the marriage so
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 13 of 16
as not to prolong the agony of the parties. However, in
the present facts, at this point in time even that situation
does not arise in view of the changed scenario on the
death of the respondent herein.
11. As already taken note, the marriage between the
parties had taken place in the year 1970 and the
undisputed fact is also that the children of the parties are
grown up and the very incidents referred to by the
appellant regarding the illegitimate relationship were
from the point of time when the respondent was posted at
Manipur and the appellant herein had shifted there in
the year 1991. By such time the marital bond was quite
mature and with regard to certain incidents where there
were allegations it can only be considered as a
misunderstanding between the parties which only
required a minor adjustment to reassure each other and
iron out the crease. Hence, merely because certain
issues have been raised with regard to the same, even if it
be on a misunderstanding in the instant facts, it cannot
be considered as inflicting mental cruelty in the nature it
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 14 of 16
is required for considering the petition under Section 13
of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolving the marriage.
Though the learned counsel representing the respondents
referred to the incidents by which the appellant had
hurled false allegations against the respondent, presently
when the respondent has died and in a circumstance
where one of the legal representatives, namely Shri Iqbbal
Singh was examined as RW6 in support of the case of
the appellant herein and the legal representatives No.1
and 3, though were majors had not been examined in the
proceedings, any contention raised on their behalf would
not be of any assistance to take any other view.
Therefore, if all these aspects are kept in perspective, we
are of the view that the High Court was not justified in
reversing the wellconsidered judgment passed by the
trial court.
12. Accordingly, the judgment dated 23.08.2006
passed in F.A.O. No.101M/1999 is set aside and the
judgment dated 08.04.1999 passed in H.M.A. File No.133
of 16.12.1995 by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 15 of 16
is restored. The instant appeal is allowed with no order
as to costs. All pending applications also stand disposed
of.
…………………….….J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
……………………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
August 21, 2019
C.A.No.2021/2010 Page 16 of 16