- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smt Prem Lata v. Arhant Kumar .
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns a wife’s appeal by special leave against an order directing restitution of conjugal rights. The parties were married on July 15, 1961, and the gouna ceremony took place on December 10, 1961. The courts below concluded that the appellant-wife deserted the matrimonial home on January 13, 1962. After an exchange of certain letters, the husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on November 3, 1965, from which the present appeal arises.
During her evidence, the wife stated she was not willing to return to her husband’s house under any circumstance. The only contention advanced on her behalf was that it was not possible for her to live in the husband’s house due to alleged ill-treatment by the husband and his parents. The trial court and the appellate court found there was no reliable evidence of such ill-treatment; the High Court refused to reappreciate the evidence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact that there was no reliable evidence of ill-treatment and that the wife deserted and did not intend to return, in an appeal against an order for restitution of conjugal rights.
- Whether the trial court and appellate court adopted an erroneous approach by wrongly placing the burden on the appellant-wife to prove that she had good grounds to leave the husband’s house.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Wife)'s Arguments
- She could not live in her husband’s house because she allegedly received ill-treatment from the husband and his parents.
- The trial court and the appellate court allegedly placed the burden wrongly on her to prove that she had good grounds to leave the matrimonial home, leading to an incorrect conclusion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that, based on the wife’s own evidence, two matters were no longer in dispute: (i) she left the husband’s house voluntarily, and (ii) she had no intention of returning under any circumstance. The remaining contention was her assertion that she could not live in the matrimonial home due to ill-treatment by the husband and his parents.
The trial court and the appellate court had concurrently concluded that there was no reliable evidence of ill-treatment. The Court treated this as essentially a finding of fact and observed that it ordinarily does not interfere with findings of fact. The Court further stated that even if it wanted to examine the correctness of these factual findings, it was not in a position to do so because all relevant documents were not before it (they had not been printed). The lower courts had relied on a number of letters exchanged between the parties, and some of those letters were not printed. In these circumstances, the Court declined the request to undertake a de novo examination of the evidence.
On the appellant’s argument regarding burden of proof, the Court held that the question of burden had no importance at this stage because both parties had adduced evidence and the trial court and appellate court had appreciated that evidence.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal directing restitution of conjugal rights. There was no order as to costs.
The Court did not disturb earlier orders directing the husband to pay the wife an aggregate sum of Rs 2000 towards the expenses of the litigation. The decision’s direct effect was to leave intact the restitution order and the prior litigation-expense direction; the opinion does not indicate that any new precedent or broader legal rule was laid down.
K.S Hegde, J.— This is a wife's appeal, by special leave against the order directing restitution of conjugal rights. The parties were married on July 15, 1961. Gouna ceremony took place on December 10, 1961. The courts below have come to the conclusion that the appellant deserted the matrimonial home on January 13, 1962. After exchange of certain letters the husband filed the suit from which this appeal arises for restitution of conjugal rights, on November 3, 1965. The wife in the course of her evidence positively stated that she was not willing to return to her husband's house under any circumstance. Hence, the questions that she left the husband's house voluntarily and that she has no idea of returning to the husband's house are no more in dispute. The only contention taken on her behalf was that it was not possible for her to live in her husband's house, because of the ill-treatment she received at the hands of her husband and his parents. Both the trial court as well as the appellate court have come to the conclusion that there is no reliable evidence to show that the appellant was ill-treated in her husband's house. This is essentially a finding of fact. This Court ordinarily does not interfere with findings of facts. Even if we want to examine the correctness of the facts found by the trial court as well as the appellate court — the High Court refused to reappreciate the evidence — we are not in a position to do so because all the relevant documents are not before us. For one reason or the other, they have not been printed. In arriving at the conclusion that there is no reliable evidence to show that the husband or his parents had ill-treated the appellant, the trial court as well as the appellate court have relied on a number of letters exchanged between the parties. Some of them have not been printed. In these circumstances, we are unable to accede to the request that we should de novo examine the evidence on record.
2. Mr O.P Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the trial court as well as the appellate court had wrongly placed the burden on the appellant to prove that she had good grounds to leave the husband's house and because of that erroneous approach those courts have come to a wrong conclusion. The question of burden of proof has no importance at this stage. Both parties have adduced evidence and the trial court and the appellate court have appreciated that evidence.
3. For the reasons mentioned above we see no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. But we do not disturb the orders earlier made by this Court directing the husband to pay to the wife a sum of Rs 2000 (in aggregate) for meeting the expenses of this litigation.
Alert