Last Updated on
FAO No.211-M of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.211-M of 2003 Date of decision: 27.08.2009 Jasbir Kaur ..Appellant Versus Kuljit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present:- Mr.Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.G.S.Bhatia, Advocate, for the respondent. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- VINOD K. SHARMA,J.
Appellant/wife is in appeal against the judgment and decree
dated 5.8.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala
allowing the petition filed by the respondent/husband under section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act).
FAO No.211-M of 2003 2
Facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the
parties were married as per Sikh rites at Chandigarh on 3.4.1990. After the
marriage the parties resided together at Patiala with some interval till
10.2.1992 and there were cordial relations between the parties. After
10.2.1992 appellant/wife never came to live with the respondent and
deserted the appellant for more than 4 years immediately before the filing of
the petition. No child was born from this wedlock. The respondent/husband
was working as Sub Divisional Officer in the Punjab State Electricity Board
and was posted at Patiala at the time of filing of the petition, whereas the
appellant/wife joined as clerk-cum- Cashier on 2.5.1990 in the State Bank
of India, Branch Office, Mohali. The appellant used to travel from Patiala to
Mohali till December, 1990 in order to attend her office. Thereafter the
appellant started visiting Patiala at the end of every week till the date of
desertion i.e. 10.02.1992. The case of the respondent further was that he
had requested the appellant either to get herself transferred from Mohali to
Patiala or take leave for longer period or in the alternative resign, as the
appellant had sufficient means to lead a happy married life. Request of the
respondent was declined and she continued with her job against the wishes
of the appellant. This was said to be cruelty towards the appellant. It was
also pleaded case of the respondent that in order to keep matrimonial tie
alive he tried to get himself transferred to Chandigarh and submitted an
application to his department but his request was declined. In spite of
rejection of his request of transfer the appellant continued with the job
against the wishes of the appellant. It was claimed that this act of appellant
amounted to cruelty and further that the appellant was guilty of desertion.
FAO No.211-M of 2003 3
It was also pleaded case of the respondent/husband that even
during her stay with the respondent, her attitude towards the respondent was
cruel as she used to maltreat and insult the respondent in the presence of his
friends and relatives. She used to taunt that the respondent was interested in
somebody else and was not interested to keep her. These allegations were
said to be false and frivolous. It was also pleaded case that on one occasion
the appellant remarked that as respondent did not tie his beard he looked
like an owl in the presence of relations and friends. The respondent further
alleged that when his friends visited his house during her stay, she never
offered even water what to talk of tea and sweets and would start quarreling
and calling bad names to the respondent in the presence of relations and
friends. The marriage was said to be simple in which no dowry was given
by the parents of the appellant, nor it was ever demanded and expected by
the respondent. In spite of this the appellant and his father in order to harass
the respondent and his parents got registered a false case under Sections
406/498-A/120-B IPC and tried to get him and his parents arrested.
On an application moved by the respondent for anticipatory bail
he had to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lac as ordered by this Court for payment to
the appellant, and it was thereafter, that his application for anticipatory bail
was considered and allowed. Amount of Rs.1 lac was deposited by the
respondent by taking loan from G.P.F., friends and relations so as to avail
concession of anticipatory bail. Respondent claimed that he was still under
debt of his friends.
The appellant with the help of police conducted raid on the
house of the respondent and all goods lying in the house were removed by
FAO No.211-M of 2003 4
the respondent, though the goods belonged to the respondent. The appellant
by misrepresentation and concealment of true facts, took away all articles
and put respondent under heavy loss and harassment. It was also alleged
that behavior of the appellant and his parents was very cruel towards the
respondent from the very beginning. The respondent further claimed that he
tried to reconcile the matter and took Panchayat to the house of the
appellant in the month of February 1992, but the appellant and her parents
refused to accede to the genuine request of the respondent.
On the occasion of Dussehra in the year 1992, the respondent
tried to bring the appellant to her matrimonial home at Patiala with the help
of his uncle and other friends, but she refused to accompany them. As such
the appellant was guilty of cruelty of desertion.
It was also the allegation of the respondent that in the presence
of respectables she levelled false allegations against the respondent that he
was impotent. Allegations were said to have been levelled by the appellant
in order to torture and humiliate the respondent.
The petition was contested by the appellant by raising a
preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. It was
averred that as per the pleadings, the parties had last resided together at
Chandigarh and therefore, only Courts at Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to
try and adjudicate the petition. It was also the case set up by the appellant
that on 10.12.1993, a compromise was arrived at between the parties in a
duly convened Panchayat comprising respectable persons, and relatives of
both the parties. Meeting of the Panchayat was held in Gurdwara, Sector-34
and Sector-35. In the Panchayat, it was decided that both the parties shall
FAO No.211-M of 2003 5
reside at Chandigarh w.e.f. 10.12.1993. This arrangement was arrived at as
it was not possible for the appellant to reside at any other place away from
Chandigarh, because she was then working as Assistant Manager in the
State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh. It was also
the case of the appellant that compromise was accepted by both the parties
and further the father of the respondent assured, that they shall not resile
from the compromise in any manner. On the basis of this assertion, it was
claimed that Court at Patiala had no territorial jurisdiction.
It was also the case of the appellant that petition for divorce
was filed as a counter blast to the criminal complaint filed under Sections
406/498-A and 120-B IPC against the respondent and his parents on
18.8.1994. The appellant claimed that she was maltreated with cruelty
which ultimately resulted in filing of the complaint.
It was the positive case of the appellant that prior to the filing
of the criminal complaint, all possible measures to save the matrimonial
home were taken and attempts were made by the relations and friends.
However, the respondent did not accept the request made by
Another preliminary objection was that the respondent was of
very quarrelsome nature and his conduct was very suspicious and doubtful.
It was averred that before the marriage with the appellant, the respondent
was engaged to a Canadian Girl namely Smt.Inderjit Kaur, The engagement
and Shagun ceremony with Smt.Inderjit Kaur was performed at Delhi, in
which he had received a sum of Rs.2 lacs along with other costly gifts.
It was alleged that the respondent and his parents were greedy
FAO No.211-M of 2003 6
persons, and just a day prior to the marriage with Smt.Inderjit Kaur, they
demanded dowry worth Rs.4 lacs, on account of which the marriage could
not take place and engagement was broken. Respondent, however,
succeeded in retaining a sum of Rs.2 lacs and other valuable articles. On
the basis of above said allegations it was pleaded that the conduct of the
respondent showed, that he was habitual in spoiling the lives of girls, after
receiving handsome amount.
On merit, factum of marriage was admitted. However, it was
denied that parties had cordial relations. The case set by the appellant was
that from the very beginning of the marriage the respondent and his parents
started maltreating the appellant, as they were not satisfied with the dowry
brought by her. It was claimed that father of the appellant had given
sufficient dowry beyond his capacity, but the lust of respondent and his
family members remained unsatisfied. It was also pleaded case of the
appellant that during the first five days of marriage the respondent and his
parents continued harassing the appellant for the account of salary of five
years service period, prior to marriage. It was alleged that respondent
threatened to teach her a lesson, in case she failed to account for the salary
of five years period prior to marriage. It was also the case of the appellant
that the demand of cash and dowry continued growing with passage of time,
which made the life of the appellant miserable with each passing day.
It was also case set up by the appellant that after marriage, the
parties resided at Patiala for some time and thereafter, they continued
residing at Chandigarh upto 31.12.1993 under the compromise. It was
pleaded that just after ten days of marriage, the respondent told her that
FAO No.211-M of 2003 7
they should adopt a child, rather than having their own child which led to
apprehension in her mind that respondent may be suffering from impotency.
It was pleaded that appellant had joined the Bank service on 13.5.1985
and was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in State Bank of India, Mohali
Branch, when the marriage was solemnized. After the marriage the appellant
remained on leave upto 1.5.1990 and thereafter, she remained on leave for
five months. The appellant thereafter continued coming daily from Patiala to
Mohali to attend office. It was also averred by the appellant that she tried
her level best to maintain her relationship with the respondent and his
family members, but the respondent at the instance of his parents continued
to harass and humiliate the appellant with utmost cruelty. Even after taking
huge amount, on the night of 9.2.1992, the respondent made an attempt to
eliminate the appellant, but could not succeed, because of tactful handling
by the appellant i.e. that she agreed to sign the LIC papers after some time
On 10.2.1992, early in the morning in-laws of the appellant
again gave her severe beating to force her to sign the LIC policy, but, the
appellant refused to do so. She was thereafter thrown out of her in-laws
house in bare three clothes. In spite of this incident, the appellant hushed up
the matter, so that relations are not strained. It was also pleaded, that the
appellant sacrificed her promotion to the next higher rank, so that the
relationship between the parties may not suffer further damage.
The appellant claimed that she was eligible for promotion to
officer rank in the year 1990, but she did not avail that opportunity, as she
always desired to remain in the company of the respondent. The appellant
FAO No.211-M of 2003 8
had even applied for her transfer from Mohali to Patiala on 7.5.1990, which
showed her bona fide intention to maintain the matrimonial relations intact.
It was alleged that the respondent/husband never remained
interested in making the married life happy, rather, she was treated with
cruelty and humiliation by the respondent and his parents. It was claimed
that the respondent was interested in her continuing with job and that was
the reason to seek transfer from Patiala to Mohali. It was further alleged that
the respondent had married the appellant only with a view to have an
earning spouse. It was asserted that the respondent never applied for his
transfer from Patiala, nor he ever disclosed this fact to the appellant even
during his stay at Chandigarh. The appellant had no knowledge at all about
his application for transfer. The appellant denied the allegation of mis-
behaviour, and insult in the presence of relations. She claimed that she
treated the respondent, his parents, relatives, friends and other visitors
gracefully, and in a very appropriate manner. Allegation of simple marriage
was denied. It was alleged that marriage was performed with great pomp
and show, and various dowry articles like jewellery and cash were given to
the respondent and his parents.
It was also pleaded that a case under Sections 406/498-A and
120-B IPC was registered against the respondent and his parents after
thorough investigation by the Police. It was also the case set up that the
appellant and her parents, had tried their level best to persuade the
respondent and his parents not to adopt unwarranted ways. She claimed that
on occasion of Dussehra, the appellant along with her parents and uncle met
her father-in-law and the respondent so that the dispute could be patched
FAO No.211-M of 2003 9
up, as her parents hoped for improvement. It was pleaded that the meeting
was held at the House of Shri Malik Singh i.e. No.3392, Sector-19-D,
Chandigarh, but no concrete solution was found. It was in the meeting that
it came to the knowledge of the appellant, her father and the relatives that
Shri Malik Singh and father of the respondent were the main culprits in
humiliating and spoiling the relations so that the marriage of the
respondent could be arranged with third girl, to fetch some more money.
In the replication, averments made in the petition were
reiterated whereas averments made in the written statement were denied.
On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were
framed by the learned Matrimonial Court:-
1. Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner for two
years immediately before the presentation of the
2. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree for
In support of his case respondent/husband appeared as PW 5
and also examined Gurinder Singh PW 1, D.K.Kapoor PW 2, Joginder
Singh PW 3, Satnam Singh PW 4 besides adducing documentary evidence.
To rebut the claim of the respondent/husband, the
appellant/wife herself appeared in the witness box as RW 10 and also
FAO No.211-M of 2003 10
examined HC Gurmeet Singh as RW 1, Daljit Singh RW 2, Prem Singh RW
3, Taranjit Singh RW 4, SI Jagbir Singh RW 5, Manjit Singh RW 6,
Harbhajan Singh RW 7, Bhupinder Singh RW 8, Sardar Singh RW 9 and
also led documentary evidence.
Issues No.1 and 2 were taken up together by the learned
In the background of settled principle of cruelty learned
matrimonial court assessed the evidence led by the parties to the effect that
the allegations of cruelty are based on the grounds that the appellant
continued with her job against his wishes, that the appellant passed taunting
remarks that he looked like a owl in the presence of his friends and
relatives, that her behavior towards the relatives was not good, as she never
served water etc. to guests and lastly that she falsely alleged him to be
Learned matrimonial court held that the respondent had
pleaded in the petition, that the appellant alleged him to be impotent person
in the presence of relatives. This assertion was supported by him while
appearing in the witness box. The learned court held that there was no
specific denial to these allegations, in the written statement rather the
appellant took a stand, that after 10 days of marriage the respondent told
her that they should adopt a child, rather than having their own. In this way
it was revealed that the respondent may be suffering from impotency. Even
while appearing in the witness box as RW 10 the appellant did not deny
the allegations of impotency having been made by her. The statement of
appellant in examination-in-chief was not challenged in cross-examination.
FAO No.211-M of 2003 11
Learned matrimonial court held that the plea of the
respondent, in this regard got support from the document relied upon by the
appellant. Ex.R.28 was the complaint lodged by the appellant against the
respondent and his parents on the basis whereon FIR Ex.R.30 was got
recorded, and order of conviction was also passed against the respondent
Even in the complaint she alleged impotency and unchastity
against the respondent. The learned matrimonial court observed that in her
statement she stated, that it appeared to her that respondent was impotent,
and further that he might have got illegal relationship with another girl
either in his office or elsewhere. The learned court held that matter did not
end there as during the pendency of the petition the respondent filed an
application to undergo medical examination regarding potency to disporve
the averments in the written statement. In reply to the application the
appellant reiterated that she had rightly pleaded in para No.5 of the written
statement that the appellant may be suffering from impotency. It was
asserted by the appellant that the allegations were neither frivolous nor
vexatious but based on well founded apprehension of the appellant, on the
basis of desire of the respondent to adopt a child rather than having their
own. The learned matrimonial court on appreciation of evidence came to
the conclusion that it stood proved, that the appellant had levelled false
allegations of impotency.
The plea of the appellant that it was the respondent who caused
cruelty to the appellant by stating that he did not want a child that too only
after 10 days of marriage was not accepted. It was held that there was
FAO No.211-M of 2003 12
consummation of marriage as it was not the case of the appellant that
marriage was not consummated or that she never had any sexual
relationship with him.
The learned matrimonial court came to the conclusion that in
the absence of plea of non-consummation of marriage, the allegations of
impotency were false which definitely caused pain and anguish to the
respondent which resulted in mental cruelty.
Plea of the appellant that there was no independent witness
produced, to prove these allegations was not accepted, as the learned
matrimonial court held that the sole statement was sufficient. Furthermore
from the document relied upon by the appellant, it was evident that
allegations of impotency were made. The learned matrimonial court, placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case
of Smt.Padmini Vs. G.Sivananda 2000 (2) CCC 325 wherein it was held
that the allegations of impotency of her husband which are conveyed to the
brother of the husband created intense mental cruelty, anguish and pain to
the husband to come to the conclusion that cruelty stood proved.
The learned matrimonial court held that allegations of impotency, did
not remain within the family and close circle rather it was made open to the
public when the respondent raised these allegations in Ex.R.28, which was
addressed to the Chief Minister, Punjab, Inspector General of Police, Union
Territory Chandigarh, Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh/Patiala
and Chairman Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. On the basis of
complaint Ex.R.28 proceedings were also initiated under sections 406 and
498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was decided vide
FAO No.211-M of 2003 13
judgment Ex.R.31. The judgment passed by the learned trial court was set
aside by appellate court.
Learned matrimonial court also held that even in the judgment
Ex.R.31 impotency was one of the basic issue raised by the appellant. The
learned court, therefore, held that the respondent faced these allegations
throughout the trial and on the basis of these, learned matrimonial court
came to the conclusion that allegations of impotency caused great pain and
anguish to the respondent.
The respondent also led medical evidence to prove that he was
capable of having sexual intercourse and to establish his potency he had
examined PW 2 Dr.Joginder Singh, Superintendent Office of Civil Surgeon
Patiala who proved the medical examination report qua the respondent
Ex.P.6. In the said report a positive finding was recorded that the
respondent was not suffering from impotency. Allegations of cruelty i.e.
non-preparation of tea etc for his relatives and friends, her misbehaviour
were treated to be general and not specific in nature and therefore, not
accepted. The allegations that wife had stated that respondent looked like
owl in the presence of relations and friends were also not accepted being
vague. Evidence of Shri V.K.Kapoor was not accepted in this regard. Other
allegations of cruelty were held to be not proved.
Learned matrimonial court also did not accept the version that
the appellant was working against the wishes of the respondent. Version of
the appellant that the respondent and his family members caused cruelty to
her as they were not satisfied with the dowry was not accepted. Learned
matrimonial court held that demand of dowry is certainly a cruelty, but
FAO No.211-M of 2003 14
these allegations have to be established by specific and trustworthy
evidence. In support of these allegations only oral evidence was led by the
appellant. The Learned matrimonial court observed that no allegations
regarding dowry were levelled till the filing of the complaint Ex.R.28 i.e.
on 18.4.1994, when the parties were living separately. The learned
matrimonial court further held that even in the criminal case the parents
were acquitted vide judgment Ex.R.31. The learned court also did not
believe the assertion of the appellant that the money from joint recurring
account opened by the parties was taken away by the respondent for buying
a plot, in view of her admission, that the recurring deposit amount, was
with her and she has invested it in her and her mother’s name. The learned
matrimonial court on the basis of evidence also did not accept the plea that
the respondent was a greedy person. The learned court also held that the
allegations that the respondent had tried to eliminate her on 9.2.1992 and
tried to force her sign on LIC papers were not believable, for want of
evidence in support thereof.
The learned matrimonial court also did not accept the version
of the appellant, that engagement with Smt. Inderjit Kaur was broken on
account of demand of dowry. The learned matrimonial court held that after
the marriage the parties had last resided at Patiala, and the version of the
appellant that after the compromise they resided at Chandigarh was not
believed due to the material contradiction in evidence. The learned
matrimonial court held that from the evidence it was established that the
appellant had not returned to the matrimonial home after 10.2.1992 and was
guilty of desertion.
FAO No.211-M of 2003 15
Issues No.1 and 2 were decided in favour of the
respondent/husband. Issue No.3 was not pressed. In view of the findings on
issues No.1 and 2, issue No.4 was decided in favour of the
respondent/husband and against the appellant. Resultantly, the marriage
between the parties was ordered to be dissolved by a decree of divorce.
Mr.Arun Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant vehemently contended that the finding of the learned matrimonial
court on the ground of desertion cannot be sustained as there was no
evidence on record showing animus deserendi as the appellant was always
ready and still ready to join matrimonial home. The respondent himself is
not interested to keep her and has remarried in spite of appeal. The
contention of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant was that after the separation attempts were made to reconcile the
matter and in fact, the parties had compromised the matter and started living
It was also the contention of learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant that in order to succeed on the ground of
desertion it was for the respondent to prove the separation and animus
deserendi for continuous period of 2 years immediately preceding the
presentation of petition.
It was also the contention of the learned senior counsel for the
appellant that she was not living separately without reasonable cause as she
is a working lady and was required to stay at her place of posting.
It was due to the act of cruelty and misbehaviour of the
respondent and his family members that it became impossible for her to visit
FAO No.211-M of 2003 16
her matrimonial home at Patiala. It was for these reasons that the
arrangement was made to stay together at Chandigarh. The arguments raised
by the learned senior counsel for the appellant looked attractive on the face
of it but when seen in depth it has no substance for the reasons to be stated
The appellant had set up a positive case that compromise was
arrived at between the parties on 10.12.1993, where it was decided that the
parties were to live at Chandigarh. In pursuance thereto they, in fact, resided
at Chandigarh from 30.12.1993.This assertion was tried to be proved on the
ground that the stamp paper was also purchased by the respondent to write
the compromise arrived at between the parties in the meeting held in Park
in Sector 35, Chandigarh, but it was not written. Support in this regard was
sought from the statement of Daljit Singh RW 2, Prem Singh RW 3
Harbhajan Singh RW 7 and Bhupinder Singh RW 8. This plea cannot be
accepted as it was rightly held by the learned matrimonial court that no
explanation was forthcoming as to why no writing was written, if there was
actually a compromise, as alleged.
The stand of the appellant stood negatived, by the documentary
evidence, that appellant was in fact on tour from 7.12.1993 to 10.12.1993
to attend a court case which was fixed before Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
TA Bills were also produced to prove the tour programme by the
respondent, therefore, the version of the appellant that there was
compromise cannot be accepted. Furthermore, in the pleadings it was said
that compromise was arrived at Gurudwara, whereas in the evidence it was
stated to be arrived at in the park in Sector-35.
FAO No.211-M of 2003 17
It may further be seen that the learned matrimonial court
rightly held that the appellant was not able to give the name of landlord
under whom they lived as tenant nor rent receipts were produced, nor any
ration card, gas delivery card, voter list or any other document showing their
residence was brought on record.
It may also be noticed here that the specific allegations made by
the appellant that she was treated with cruelty were found to be false.
Taking of false defence leaves no manner of doubt that the respondent
succeeded in proving, the separation and animus deserendi, for a period of 2
years preceding the time of presentation of petition. The second marriage
was performed after the decree of divorce. The mere offer to live with the
husband at the time of reconciliation cannot be a ground to upset the
findings on desertion.
To challenge the finding of cruelty, it was vehemently
contended, that the allegations were made by the appellant on the basis of
reasonable apprehension, in view of the fact that the respondent within first
10 days of marriage, had desired that parties should adopt a chid as he did
not want to have their own child.
The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant
further was, that allegations of impotency were not made in public as is
clear from Ex.R.23 i.e. the first complaint made by the respondent in which,
no allegation of impotency was made. It was further contended by the
learned senior counsel that in the complaint filed on the basis of which
FIR was registered no specific allegations of impotency were made, but
only apprehension was shown in view of the desire of the respondent to
FAO No.211-M of 2003 18
adopt a child.
The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant
also was that husband cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong
by claiming, that this false allegation of impotency was levelled against the
respondent so as to cause mental cruelty.
On consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions
raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The allegations of
impotency were not denied in the written statement filed by the appellant.
Rather the allegations were reasserted in the complaint filed with the police.
In reply to the application moved by the respondent for getting himself
medically examined to prove his potency those allegations were reasserted.
Merely because no allegations were made in the complaint Ex.R.23, cannot
be of any advantage to the appellant, as it is the settled law that allegations
made during the course of proceedings also amount to cruelty.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar
Ramchandra Bhate Vs. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate AIR 2003 SC 2462
has been pleased to lay down as sunder:-
” Hindu Marriage Act S.13(1)(ia) – Divorce- Grounds,
mental ‘cruelty’ meted out of wife – Allegations made by
husband in written statement extensively with enumeration of
instances and incidents against wife branding her as an
unchaste woman, keeping extra marital relations is a grave
assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as
the health of the wife and viewed in the context of an educated
Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards.
FAO No.211-M of 2003 19
Allegations amount to worst form of insult and cruelty,
sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law. Claim of wife
liable to be allowed. Withdrawal of such allegations
unilaterally by the husband by filing an application for
amendment of the written statement. Do not wipe out complete
all those allegations for all purposes and amendments carried
out subsequently does not absolve the husband from being held
liable for having treated the wife with cruelty. Moreso when
such allegations continue to remain on record.
Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of V.Bhagat Vs. Mrs. D.Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710.
Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of S.Latha Kunjamma
Vs. K.Anil Kumar AIR 2008 Kerala 203 has been pleased to lay down
that averments, accusations and character assassinations attributed to party
in the written statement and during the examination of facts also constitute
Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the
case of Smt.Savitri Balchandani Vs. Mulchand Balchandani AIR 1987
Delhi 52 and Ashok Vs. Santosh AIR 1987 Delhi 63. The allegations of
impotency, though respondent was found to be potent in medical
examination do amount to cruelty. The plea that these allegations were
based on reasonable apprehension, also has no legs to stand, as the parties
lived together and marriage was duly consummated.
The respondent was further treated with cruelty as false
criminal case was got registered against the respondent and his family
FAO No.211-M of 2003 20
members in which they stand acquitted. This act of the appellant itself is
sufficient to hold that the appellant had treated the respondent with cruelty.
In view of what is stated above, the finding of the learned
matrimonial court on the ground of cruelty is also affirmed.
Consequently, this appeal is ordered to be dismissed with no
order as to costs.
(Vinod K.Sharma) 27.08.2009 Judge rp