Gurdial Kaur Vs Mukand Singh

Citations: Gurdial Kaur Vs Mukand Singh, AIR 1967 P H 235

Date of Judgement: 03/05/1966

Case No.: F.A.O. 40-M of 1963

Case Type: Civil Appeal.

Appellant: Gurdial Kaur

Respondent: Mukand Singh

Bench: Hon’ble Justice J.N. Kaushal.

Court: High Court of Punjab & Haryana

Statutes Referred:

Cases Referred:

Facts:

The appellant, Gurdial Kaur, has been married to Mukand Singh for nine years. The couple lived together, and no child was born to them.
The mother and maternal uncle called the appellant to her home for a short visit. But, after that, the Appellant never returned to her matrimonial home.
Despite the attempts by the respondent, Gurdial Kaur did not return to her marital life and refused cohabitation as a wife.
Aggrieved by the refusal, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code alleging the petitioner’s marriage with one Bachman Singh. However, the complaint was dismissed without any action against the accused.
After seven months of the complaint, an application was filed by Mukand Singh before the Subordinate Court seeking a grant for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Later the petitioner, Gurdial Kaur, refuted all the allegations made. She denied marrying the respondent and contended that the respondent has an interest in her property, and this is why he wanted to prove the marriage with the petitioner.
The Appellant raised questions concerning the jurisdiction of the Subordinate court to try the case.
However, on 16.05.1963, the appeal seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted in favor of Mukand Singh.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Subordinate Court, the Appellant brought an appeal before the Honorable High Court of Punjab & Haryana, seeking the Court to set aside the decree.

Issues Involved:

Whether there was a marriage between the parties?
Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the case?
Whether the Appellant without any just and reasonable cause has withdrawn from the society of the respondent?
Whether a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, be grantedin favor of the respondent or not?

Contention of Appellant:

The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that the Court did not have jurisdiction to try the matter.
The respondent, Mukand Singh, had an ulterior interest in the appellant’s property, and to succeed in her property, he claimed the appellant to be his wife.
Furthermore, the testimony of Nurati, the mother of the appellant, asserted that the respondent is a total stranger to them.
Also, the document of electoral roll produced has little probative value and it can not be relied on in this case.
The counsel contended that the Court could grant any such decree only when the alleged relationship between the parties existed. So, the order granted is not appropriate and must be set aside.

Contention of Respondent:

Respondent asserted that the appellant is his wife, and the claims of the appellants are false.
The respondent alleged that the appellant has withdrawn from her duties and responsibilities without any just and reasonable excuse.
The attempts of the respondent to resolve the dispute and resume their cohabitation went futile on the appellant’s refusal.
Also, the document of electoral roll and examination of defence witnesses were sufficient to establish that the parties to the case shared a marital relationship. The witnesses also contended that the appellant resided with her husband even a year before filing the application.
Hence the decree passed by the lower court in favor of the respondent for the restitution of conjugal rights is appropriate and should not be set aside.

Judgement:

The Honorable High Court after, hearing both sides and considering the necessary evidence, observed that the findings of the learned judge of the Subordinate Court were appropriate.
In the wake of sufficient oral & written evidence against the appellant, the court held that Gurdial Kaur was the wife of Mukand Singh.
Since the appellant, Gurdial Kaur, denied marriage with the respondent, it was clear that she withdrew from the society of Mukand Singh without any just cause.

Consequently, the appeal failed and was dismissed accordingly without any cost.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court referred to the cases of Rai Brij Raj Krishna Vs S.K. Shaw and Brothers, AIR 1951 SC 115 & Punno Ram Vs Thakar Dass, Civil Misc No. 987 of 1956.
Relying upon support from the above-stated cases, the Honorable High Court contended that the Subordinate Court had jurisdiction to decide the case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the instant matter.
Further, the testimony of Witness 1 Sadhu Singh & Witness 2 Harnam Singh (of the same village) stated that the appellant was married to the respondent. They lived together, and the appellant parted only one and a half years before filing the application.
Also, the appellant at the time of the appeal was twenty-five and claimed to be unmarried. However, the elder sister of the appellant was married when she was fourteen or fifteen.
The court viewed that it was hard to believe that the appellant was unmarried till such an advanced age. Further, the explanation given by her mother regarding the same was vague and false.
The evidence produced on behalf of the appellant was negative and was not sufficient or satisfactory to prove that she was a stranger to the respondent.
Also, the document of electoral roll issued in the year 1959 stated that the respondent Mukand Singh and the appellant (recognized as his wife) lived in the same house.
Thus, the High Court observed that the appellant’s denial was not just, and she withdrew from her responsibilities without any just and reasonable excuse.

Conclusion:

To conclude, we can say that the respondent’s claims were vague, and thus the High Court of Punjab & Haryana was just in adjudging the matter.

The appeal was accordingly rejected by the court, and a decree seeking restitution of conjugal rights was granted in favor of the respondent.

Drafted By: Shivani Tiwary, School of Law DAVV.

Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider

Published On: October 5, 2021 at 10:23 IST

You Missed