LAW FINDER

WWW.LAWFINDERLIVE.COM
Submitted By: Sh.Ishan Gupta,Advocate
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

Rajni Goyal v. Amit Kumar (P&H)(DB) Law Finder Doc Id # 654976

2015(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 871 : 2015(3) CivCC 115 : 2015(3) HLR 456 : 2015(3) LJR 324
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
(DB)
Before :- Ajay Kumar Mittal and Sneh Prashar, JJ.
F.A.O. No. M-151 of 2014 (O&M). D/d. 16.12.2014.
Rajni Goyal - Petitioner
Versus
Amit Kumar - Respondent
For the Appellant :- Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- S.S. Bhinder, Advocate.
A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1) Divorce - Adultery - Cruelty - Husband sought divorce on the ground of
adultery and cruelty - Wife (appellant) and her father, in an enquiry, admitted illicit relation of appellant with one `M'
- No other specific instance was required to be stated or proved by husband for proving his charge of adultery against
his wife - Charge of adultery proved - There appears no reason to reject the allegation of husband that the behaviour
of appellant-wife towards him and his family members was very harsh and cruel - Decree of divorce affirmed.
[Paras 16 to 18]
B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1) Divorce - Adultery - Maintenance to wife - Wife had been living in adultery
- She is not entitled to claim maintenance from husband.
[Para 18]
C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1) Divorce - Adultery - Adultery is a serious charge and has to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt - But at the same time it is difficult to procure direct evidence for proving such a charge - It
is only from the circumstances that an inference can be drawn that the spouse against whom complaint has been
made was leading an adulterous life.
[Para 15]
D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1) Evidence Act, 1872 - Admissions - Admission of a fact by a party is the
best evidence that can be used by the other party.
[Para 15]
Cases Referred :
Nirmal Chandra Dash v. Smt. Janaki Dash @ Panda, 2013(3) CCC 60 (Orissa) (DB).
Prakash v. Bindu, 2013(4) CCC 318 (Kerala) (DB).
Smt. Dassi w/o Dhani Ram v. Dhani Ram Teku, AIR 1969 Punjab and Haryana 25.
Sri Gopika Ranjan Chakrabarty v. Sri Sabita Rani Chakrabarty, 1987 HLR 581.
Subbarma Reddiar v. Saraswathi Ammal, AIR 1967 Madras 85.
JUDGMENT
Sneh Prashar, J. - By way of this appeal, appellant-Rajni Goyal assailed the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2014 passed by
learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, vide which H.M.A. case No. 27 dated 01.03.2011 filed under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act of 1955') by her husband Amit Kumar-petitioner was allowed and a
decree of divorce dissolving their marriage was passed.
2. The facts which need elaboration are as under:-
Appellant Rajni Goyal was married to respondent Amit Kumar on 12.06.2009 at Village Chanarthal, District Bathinda as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies. The couple resided together at Bathinda for a short period but no child was born out of the
wedlock.
It was averred by Amit Kumar that during the period Rajni Goyal stayed at the matrimonial home, she used to receive
telephonic calls from her paramour namely, Manpreet Singh (respondent No. 2). She lived in adultery and her paramour
threatened him of dire consequences which caused him grave mental agony. Pleading about the general behaviour of Rajni
 LAW FINDER
WWW.LAWFINDERLIVE.COM
Submitted By: Sh.Ishan Gupta,Advocate
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

Goyal, Amit Kumar alleged that she was very harsh and rude towards him; she would create scene over trivial matters and
wanted to lead a aristocratic life whereas he had limited source of income; she refused to cook food or prepare tea for
him, his family members and also when some friend/relative visited their house, rather in their presence she abused and
humiliated him; she also often threatened to commit suicide and get his entire family implicated in a false criminal case in
connivance with her paramour. Pleading that he had been subjected to cruelty by Rajni Goyal and she had been guilty of
adultery Amit Kumar prayed for a decree of divorce.
3. The petition was contested by appellant Rajni Goyal. In the written statement filed by her, she pleaded that her husband
Amit Kumar had not come to the Court with clean hands and had concealed true and material facts. According to her, she and
Amit Kumar had a love affair prior to the marriage. When their parents came to know about their intimacy, they arranged their
marriage and her parents spent more than L 3 Lacs as per demand of Amit Kumar and his family members. Amit Kumar and his
family were not satisfied with the dowry given by her parents and soon after marriage they started raising demand for additional
dowry. They started harassing and maltreating her on one pretext or the other. She was beaten up and turned out of the
matrimonial home. In that regard, even an application was given by her to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda.
As regards respondent No. 2 Manpreet Singh, Rajni Goyal alleged that a false story had been concocted by her husband Amit
Kumar of her relationship with said Manpreet Singh in order to make a ground for divorce. Manpreet Singh was a friend of Amit
Kumar and in collusion with the police Amit Kumar had prepared some false documents. Denying that she had ever admitted any
kind of relationship with Manpreet Singh before any person or authority and controverting all other allegations levelled by Amit
Kumar, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Respondent No. 2 Manpreet Singh despite service did not appear to contest the petition.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether the respondent No. 1 was having adulterous relations with respondent No. 2? OPP.
(2) Whether respondent No. 1 treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP.
(3) Whether the petitioner has no locus standi & cause of action to file this petition? OPR.
(4) Relief.
5. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions.
Considering the evidence available and the submissions made, learned trial Court accepted the allegation of Amit Kumar that
appellant Rajni Goyal was living in adultery with Manpreet Singh (respondent No. 2) and had also treated him with cruelty and
allowed the petition for divorce filed by Amit Kumar. The marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce
vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2014.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree appellant Rajni Goyal has preferred the instant appeal.
7. We have heard the submissions made by Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Bhinder,
learned counsel representing the respondent.
8. It is a case where the parties after marriage lived together for hardly a few months. According to Amit Kumar, he and his
wife cohabited as husband and wife for barely 1-1= months, whereas version of appellant Rajni Goyal was that they lived
together for three months. The main allegation of Amit Kumar was that after marriage with him Rajni Goyal was living in adultery
with Manpreet Singh (respondent No. 2). He also came to know that prior to marriage with him, she had illicit relations with said
Manpreet Singh.
In addition to the allegation that Rajni Goyal was leading an adulterous life, Amit Kumar alleged that her normal behaviour
towards him and his family members was also very harsh and cruel. She quarreled on trivial matters and created scenes;
refused to perform household cores and abused and humiliated him in the presence of his relatives and friends.
9. Besides stepping into the witness box and reiterating his allegations on oath by way of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, Amit Kumar
produced ocular as well as documentary evidence to establish his allegation that Rajni Goyal was living in adultery with
Manpreet Singh. PW2 Jagjit Singh and PW3 Rajwinder Singh unequivocally deposed that Rajni Goyal had been living in adultery
with Manpreet Singh and that the matter was reported at Police Station Kot Fatta on 21.08.2009. They stated that they
participated in the inquiry held by the police and that during the inquiry proceedings father of Rajni Goyal had admitted that his
daughter was having adulterous relations with Manpreet Singh. They added that Rajni Goyal had been abusing and humiliating
Amit Kumar in the presence of his family and friends.
10. PW5 Head Constable Jasveer Singh producing the record of P.C. Branch of the Office of Senior Superintendent of Police,
Bathinda stated that on the basis of complaint dated 24.08.2009 given by Amit Kumar, an inquiry was conducted. He proved
the inquiry report Ex.PW5/A, statement of Rajni Goyal Ex.PW5/B, copy of complaint Ex.PW5/D, statement of Gagandeep
Ex.PW5/E and statement of Amit Kumar Ex.PW5/F. The statement of Manohar Lal, father of Rajni Goyal Mark-A and statement
of Manpreet Singh Mark-B were also tendered in evidence by this witness.
PW6 Gurcharan Kaur, Retired Sub Inspector testified that in the year 2009 she was posted at Women Cell, Police Station
Bathinda as a Counsellor and had inquired into the complaint Ex.PW6/A on the directions of Ashish Chowdhary, IPS, Senior
Superintendent of Police, Bathinda. She proved her inquiry report Ex.PW6/B, statement of Manpreet Singh recorded on
14.10.2009 Ex.PW6/C, Rajni Goyal dated 11.11.2009 Ex.PW6/D, Amit Kumar Ex.PW6/E and Surinder Kumar Ex.PW6/F. She also
proved her report dated 30.11.2009 Ex.PW6/G.
11. Scrutinising the documents Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/F proved by PW5 Head Constable Jasveer Singh, the findings of learned
 LAW FINDER
WWW.LAWFINDERLIVE.COM
Submitted By: Sh.Ishan Gupta,Advocate
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

trial Court were as under :-

"Perusal of the copy of complaint Ex.PW5/C moved by petitioner Amit Kumar reveals that he moved this complaint to SSP,
Bathinda, he alleged therein that soon after his marriage with the respondent No. 1 he started receiving threats through
messages and telephonic calls and when he enquired the matter, he found that it was respondent No. 2 Manpreet Singh,
who was doing all this and when he contacted him, said Manpreet Singh disclosed regarding his intimate relations with
respondent No. 1 Rajni Goyal. It is further mentioned therein that when he discussed the matter with his wife Rajni Goyal,
then in order to conceal her mistake, she started levelling false allegations against him and his family members and also
threatened to commit suicide. Further statement of Rajni Bala Ex.PW5/B recorded in the enquiry proceedings reveals that
she specifically suffered statement that she would not maintain any relation with Manpreet Singh, nor she would contact
him on phone. Further from statement of Manpreet Singh, respondent No. 2, proved as Ex.PW5/D, it transpires that he
also admitted his relationship with respondent No. 1 Rajni Goyal. Even father of respondent No. 1 namely Manohar Lal in
his statement Mark-A recorded in the enquiry proceedings, got recorded that he has come to know that was daughter
has illicit relations with Manpreet Singh, who also visited his house on one occasion before marriage of her daughter. As is
clear from the above said statement of respondent No. 1 that she used to contact the respondent No. 2 on phone, that
also amounts to cruelty. This view of this Court finds support from the case law, Prakash v. Bindu reported in 2013(4)
CCC, 318 (Kerala) (DB), wherein it is held that making consistent phone calls and maintaining a relationship with
another person, during subsistence of marriage, amounts to cruelty."
12. Further, the documents proved by PW6 Gurcharan Kaur, Retired Sub Inspector relating to the inquiry held by her into the
complaint given by Amit Kumar, were analyzed by learned trial Court as under :-
"Further from the statement of Manpreet Singh Ex.PW6/C, recorded in the enquiry proceedings by Women Police Station,
it transpires that he duly admitted his illicit relations with Rajni Goyal, respondent No. 1. In the said proceedings,
statement of respondent No. 1 Rajni Goyal was also recorded, which is proved as Ex.PW6/D, wherein she tendered her
apology regarding her illicit relations with Manpreet Singh and she also stated that she would not repeat such mistake in
future. As such from the above said evidence, it is crystal clear that respondent No. 1 Rajni Goyal and respondent No. 2
Manpreet Singh and even Manohar Lal, father of Rajni Goyal, have duly admitted the fact that Rajni Goyal, was having
illicit relations with respondent No. 2 Manpreet Singh, even before her marriage with petitioner. It is settled proposition of
law that an admitted fact by a party does not need to be proved by the other party. Though, respondent No. 1 during
her statement in the court has denied of suffering statement in the above said enquiry proceedings, but she has duly
admitted the fact regarding moving of complaint to SSP, Bathinda and she has also admitted that she appeared before
the enquiry officers. There is no explanation as to why a police officer, would manipulate statements of so many
witnesses, so recorded during enquiry proceedings. The above said enquiry proceedings and statements of witnesses
recorded therein have been proved through cogent and convincing evidence and there is no reason to see them with
suspicious eyes. It has been held in Nirmal Chandra Dash v. Smt. Janaki Dash @ Panda & Ors., reported in 2013(3)
CCC 60 (Orissa) (DB) that proof of actual adultery is not necessary circumstantial evidence which lends to an inference
of adultery is sufficient the degree of proof need not reach certainty but it must carry a high degree of probability."
13. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that except for the serious allegation of adultery levelled by Amit Kumar against
appellant Rajni Goyal his all other grievances are general in nature which do not come within the ambit of the term 'cruelty'
postulated under Section 13 (1) of the Act of 1955 as a ground for seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by
the complaining spouse. As far as the allegation of living in adultery is concerned, learned counsel contended that it is a settled
proposition of law that the charge of 'adultery' has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Indisputably, 'adultery' is an act
involving a voluntary act of sexual intercourse between the erring spouse and some other person. Unless the complaining
spouse is able to voluntarily establish relationship between his/her spouse and some person, the charge of adultery cannot be
said to be proved. To support his argument, learned counsel relied upon Subbarma Reddiar v. Saraswathi Ammal, AIR 1967
Madras 85; Smt. Dassi w/o Dhani Ram v. Dhani Ram Teku AIR 1969 Punjab and Haryana 25 and Sri Gopika Ranjan
Chakrabarty v. Sri Sabita Rani Chakrabarty, 1987 HLR 581.
14. Reverting to the case in hand, learned counsel asserted that the wife was not having illicit relations with Manpreet Singh
(respondent No. 2). Neither he stated nor it could be proved during the inquiries held by the police on the complaints given by
Amit Kumar that after marriage Rajni Goyal was continuing her relationship with Manpreet Singh and was living in adultery with
him. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that Rajni Goyal had some relationship with Manpreet Singh in the past i.e.
prior to marriage, that was not enough to prove the charge of living in adultery especially when the documents indicate that
after marriage with Amit Kumar, Rajni Goyal had seceded from such life.
15. There are no two thoughts over the proposition of law laid down in Smt. Dassi's case (supra) that adultery is a serious
charge and has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But at the same time it is difficult to procure direct evidence for proving
such a charge. It is only from the circumstances that an inference can be drawn that the spouse against whom complaint has
been made was leading an adulterous life.
At the same time, it is also a settled proposition of law that admission of a fact by a party is the best evidence that can be
used by the other party. It is not the case of Amit Kumar that Rajni Goyal was having illicit relations with Manpreet Singh
(respondent No. 2) prior to her marriage with him. He very specifically deposed that Rajni Goyal was living in adultery with
Manpreet Singh and during her stay with him she used to receive calls from her paramour who also used to call him and
threaten him of dire consequences. He mentioned that he gave a complaint to the police which was inquired into by Deputy
Superintendent of Police, City Bathinda. During the inquiry proceedings Rajni Goyal as well as her father Manohar Lal admitted
that she was having illicit relationship with Manpreet Singh.
PW6 Gurcharan Kaur, Retired Sub Inspector had conducted inquiry into the complaint Ex.PW6/A given by Amit Kumar. During
inquiry, by her, she recorded the statements of Rajni Goyal, Manpreet Singh and Manohar Lal, father of Rajni Goyal. All three of
them in their respective statements admitted the alleged illicit relationship. In her statement Ex. PW6/D, Rajni Goyal tendering
her apology for having illicit relations with Manpreet Singh had undertaken not to repeat such mistake in future.
 LAW FINDER
WWW.LAWFINDERLIVE.COM
Submitted By: Sh.Ishan Gupta,Advocate
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

16. If at all, Rajni Goyal had illicit relations with Manpreet Singh only prior to her marriage with Amit Kumar, she would have
specifically mentioned about the same in her statement and would not have given an assurance that she will not repeat such a
mistake in future. The assurance could only be given to the husband of not repeating a mistake that had been committed after
marriage.
17. Rajni Goyal admitted in her statement Ex.PW6/D recorded by PW6 Smt. Gurcharan Kaur, Retired Sub Inspector that she was
having illicit relations with Manpreet Singh. No doubt, the illicit relationship in common parlance is considered as having illicit
sexual relations with some other person. The words used by her in her admission were `Najayaz Sambandh'. Had there been no
illicit sexual relationship, Rajni Goyal would not have used the said term. Similarly, Manohar Lal, father of Rajni Goyal stated
about illicit relationship of his daughter with Manpreet Singh and admitted that she was having that relationship prior to
marriage with Amit Kumar.
Surprisingly, Manohar Lal, father of appellant Rajni Goyal did not step into the witness box to deny the statement given by him
during inquiry held by PW6. His absence shows that he did not want to become a part of the wrong doing of his daughter.
18. After admission by Rajni Goyal and her father of her illicit relationship with Manpreet Singh, no other specific instance was
required to be stated or proved by Amit Kumar for proving his charge of adultery against his wife Rajni Goyal. He had also
mentioned in his complaint that during her stay at the matrimonial home Rajni Goyal used to leave the house without informing
anyone and would later come home of her own. That is another circumstance which proves that Rajni Goyal was continuing her
illicit relationship with Manpreet Singh (respondent No. 2) even after her marriage with Amit Kumar.
Since the charge of adultery against Rajni Goyal is established, there appears no reason to reject the allegation of Amit Kumar
that the behaviour of Rajni Goyal towards him and his family members was very harsh and cruel. She abused and humiliated him
in the presence of his family and friends as was proved by PW2 Jagjit Singh and PW3 Rajwinder Singh.
Resultantly, the findings of learned trial Court on Issues No. 1 and 2 does not call for any intervention. There appears no
perversity or illegality in the findings. Accordingly, the decree passed by learned trial Court is upheld and the appeal having no
merit is dismissed.
CMM No. 68 of 2014
Since the appeal of the appellant Rajni Goyal has been dismissed on merits on the ground that her husband respondent Amit
Kumar had successfully proved that she had been living in adultery, it follows that she is not entitled to claim maintenance from
him and accordingly the CMM is also dismissed.
.