Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Ajaib Singh

Decided On : Apr-14-1972

Court : Rajasthan

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Ajaib Singh Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 1 => 'the Hindu Marriage Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 10',
			(int) 3 => 'the Hindu Marriage Act',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 9'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Kan Singh',
			(int) 1 => 'Ganganagar',
			(int) 2 => 'P. S. Tehsil Raisinghnagar',
			(int) 3 => 'D. W. 1',
			(int) 4 => 'W. 3 Bidar Singh',
			(int) 5 => 'D. W. 1 Smt',
			(int) 6 => 'Panchas',
			(int) 7 => 'Pri',
			(int) 8 => 'Singh D. W. 2',
			(int) 9 => 'Didar Singh D',
			(int) 10 => 'Dolat Singh',
			(int) 11 => 'Didar Singh D. W. 3',
			(int) 12 => 'Dolat Singh',
			(int) 13 => 'Dolat Singh',
			(int) 14 => 'Tej Singh'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'D.'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '31',
			(int) 1 => '5',
			(int) 2 => 'two',
			(int) 3 => '2',
			(int) 4 => '3.',
			(int) 5 => '2',
			(int) 6 => 'only two',
			(int) 7 => 'two',
			(int) 8 => 'only two',
			(int) 9 => 'two',
			(int) 10 => '3',
			(int) 11 => '1',
			(int) 12 => 'one',
			(int) 13 => '2',
			(int) 14 => '187',
			(int) 15 => '643',
			(int) 16 => '2'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sikh',
			(int) 1 => 'AIR',
			(int) 2 => 'Smt',
			(int) 3 => 'AIR 1969 Punjab',
			(int) 4 => 'Mulla'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1-7-1964',
			(int) 1 => '28-12-1965',
			(int) 2 => 'the first week of February, 1966',
			(int) 3 => 'between November.',
			(int) 4 => '1963',
			(int) 5 => 'January',
			(int) 6 => '1964',
			(int) 7 => 'January, 1964',
			(int) 8 => 'one year',
			(int) 9 => 'between July, 1965 and',
			(int) 10 => 'November',
			(int) 11 => '1959',
			(int) 12 => 'about a year',
			(int) 13 => 'the whole day',
			(int) 14 => 'almost 8 months',
			(int) 15 => '5 or 6 months',
			(int) 16 => '5 or 6 months',
			(int) 17 => 'the whole day',
			(int) 18 => '6 months',
			(int) 19 => '5 or 6 months',
			(int) 20 => 'the last 9 or 10 months',
			(int) 21 => '1962',
			(int) 22 => 'Section 10(8',
			(int) 23 => '1953'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'first',
			(int) 2 => 'second',
			(int) 3 => 'second',
			(int) 4 => 'second'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Satya',
			(int) 1 => 'Singh',
			(int) 2 => 'Satya',
			(int) 3 => 'England'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '750812',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50935/hindu-marriage-act-1955-complete-act">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955</a> - Sections 9',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 1968',
			'appellant' => 'Smt. Satya Devi',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Ajaib Singh',
			'casenote' => 'Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9 &amp; 10 Cruelty not proved by wife--'Just cause' for wife not giving company should be grave and weighty.;The 'just cause' must be 'grave and weighty' or as it is sometimes said 'grave and convincing' and that it may be distinct from a matrimonial offence. The reasons for a wife to stay away from the husband have nonetheless to be grave and weighty even though they may not amount to legal cruelly. - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. Section 2(s): [M.S. Shah, Sharad D. Dave & K.S. Jhaveri,JJ] Workman  Part time employees  Held, Part time employees are not excluded from the definition of workman in Section 2(s) merely on the ground that they are part time employees. The ex abundante cautela use of the words either whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The control test is one of the important tests, but is not to be taken as the sole test. It is also required to be examined whether the person was fully integrated into the employers concern or has remained apart from and independent of it. The other facts which may be relevant are as to who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, to organize the work, etc. A full time worker usually works in a week for 40 hours or more depending on the award or agreement. If a person falls under the definition of workman under Section 2(s) and does not fall in any excluded category, he will be covered by the definition of workman under the I.D. Act, and he will be entitled to all the benefits under the said Act. A perusal of Section 2(s) indicates that it does not specifically refer to a part-time workman nor does it specifically exclude a part-time workman from the definition of :workman. Since the number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of workman or not, it cannot be said that a part-time worker is not a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the I.D. Act. However, to decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered. The control test, the integration test and all the other relevant tests are as much applicable for deciding the status of a person rendering service on part-time basis as these tests are required to be applied for deciding the status of a person rendering the services on full-time basis. Since persons may be engaged for part-time work for various reasons, while deciding the question whether a person rendering services on part-time basis is a workman or not, the nature of the industry, the nature of services being rendered by the person, the terms and conditions of engagement and various other factors will have to be taken into consideration before coming to the conclusion whether such a person falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration.  -  He had told her several times that he was not satisfied with her and would marry another girl. He held that the wife had failed to prove that the husband was guilty of cruelty towards the wife as alleged by her. 2 he also considered the question whether in spite of the wife's failure to establish legal cruelty on the part of the husband there was still a reasonable cause for the wife's not returning to the husband The learned Judge considered AIR 1959 Punj 162 for this and came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable excuse for the wife to withdraw from the society of the husband. Satya had stated that after the marriage she was treated well by her husband for about a year, but thereafter he started maltreating her saying that she was of a black complexion and. I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned District Judge in holding that the wife had failed to establish cruelty on the part of the husband. He pointed out that even if the wife had not been able to make good her plea of cruelty on the part of the husband, it would nevertheless be the duty of the court to see in terms of Sub-section (1) to Section 9. if the husband had discharged his obligations namely, of showing that the wife was staying away without reasonable cause. Timmins, (1953) 2 All ER 187, the husband was not found guilty of cruelty but his conduct was grave and weighty which gave the wife good cause for leaving him and prevented him from obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights unless and until he satisfied the court that, if she returned to him he would behave with conjugal kindness and this was. I have no good reason to take a different view.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Timmins v. Timmins;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mangha Ram, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K.N. Tikku, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1972-04-14',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Kan Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Kan Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a wife's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Ganganagar dated 31-1-1968 granting conjugal rights to the husband and directing that the wife snail return and live with the husband.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The parties were a young couple. They were married according to the Sikh rites on 5-10-1962 at Chak 16, P. S. Tehsil Raisinghnagar. A son was born on 1-7-1964 to the parties. The petitioning husband averred that the wife had gone to see her parents on 28-12-1965, but had thereafter never returned to him. According to him. he went to fetch the wife in the first week of February, 1966. but she refused to come with him without any reasonable excuse. The wife contested the application. She denied that her husband had come to take her away. She pleaded cruelty on his part. According to her. the husband was a drunkard and was not faithful to the wife. He had told her several times that he was not satisfied with her and would marry another girl. The husband wanted the wife's consent for this, but she was not agreeable to the husband taking another wife. It was for this reason that the husband started maltreating the wife. The wife alleged that the husband had on diverse occasions, between November. 1963 and January. 1964 beaten her and treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be injurious for her to live with the husband. She proceeded to say that in January, 1964 the husband had forcibly sent, her away to her father's home in Chak 16 P. S. She therefore, remained at her father's house for one year. Thereafter on persuasion of certain Panchas the husband took the wife to his own house, but he again started maltreating her. The husband was alleged to have beaten her several times between July, 1965 and November. 1965.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Then the husband sent her back to her father's house and since then she had been residing there. The learned District Judge framed the following two Issues :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Is the petitioner guilty of cruelty towards the respondent as alleged by her in her written statement?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) To what relief is she entitled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The wife examined herself as D. W. 1 and produced D. W. 2 Pritam Singh and D, W. 3 Bidar Singh in support of her version. In rebuttal the husband examined himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned District Judge con-eidered the evidence led by the parties. He held that the wife had failed to prove that the husband was guilty of cruelty towards the wife as alleged by her. Under issue No. 2 he also considered the question whether in spite of the wife's failure to establish legal cruelty on the part of the husband there was still a reasonable cause for the wife's not returning to the husband The learned Judge considered AIR 1959 Punj 162 for this and came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable excuse for the wife to withdraw from the society of the husband.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have been taken through the entire evidence on record by learned counsel and I may first deal with it. In her statement as D. W. 1 Smt. Satya had stated that after the marriage she was treated well by her husband for about a year, but thereafter he started maltreating her saying that she was of a black complexion and. therefore, he would be taking another wife. She then stated that only two 'Rotis' would be given to her to eat for the whole day and she used to be kept confined in the room.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The incidents between them would fall in two parts. On the first occasion when prior to the child's birth she was maltreated she left for her father's house. Then she gave birth to the child. Thereafter she lived with her parents for almost 8 months. Then on the persuasion of certain Panchas the husband took her away to his house and then they again lived together for 5 or 6 months. During this period of 5 or 6 months she had again been treated with cruelty and used to be given only two 'Rotis' to eat for the whole day. Then her father and a few Panchas again came to the house of the husband. At that time the husband told the Panchas to take away the wife and then she was taken away to the house of the wife's parents. Now. what is important is whether the behaviour of the husband has been shown to be cruel for the second period, because it is obvious that when the parties had patched up earlier they seem to have forgotten and forgiven each other. Such things do happen in the wear and tear of a normal married life. We have, therefore, to see as to how the husband had treated the wife after she had been taken to the husband's home with the child. Now. regarding the husband or his people under-feeding the wife, it is enough to sav that she has not said anything of the kind in her written statement. One cannot, therefore, put faith regarding this assertion on her testimony. Then let us look to the two witnesses examined by her namely, Pri-tam Singh D. W. 2 and Didar Singh D, W. 3. These witnesses are not at all helpful for showing that the husband was treating the wife with cruelty on the second occasion. Pritam Singh was told by Dolat Singh that the husband was beating the wife. It is nothing but hearsay. He also stated that Smt. Satya had been telling the same thing. That again is hearsay. This is about the incident earlier to the birth of the child. Regard-ins the second period this witness has not said anything. He had only stated that the wife had gone to her husband's home and had lived there for 6 months and thereafter she had again started living with her parents and none had come to take her back. Didar Singh D. W. 3 had also stated that Dolat Singh had told him that the husband was beating the wife and had left her at his house. Thereafter a son was born to the wife. Then the husband had taken away the wife and the wife had lived at husband's house for 5 or 6 months. Then the witness, Dolat Singh and Tej Singh had gone to the husband's home. These persons told the husband not to beat the wife, but the husband said he wanted to have another marriage and. therefore, he would not be keeping the wife. Then these persons had brought the wife to her father's house where she had been living for the last 9 or 10 months. He added that none had come to take back the wife. This witness is also not helpful for showing that the husband had beaten his wife. I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned District Judge in holding that the wife had failed to establish cruelty on the part of the husband.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the whole approach of the learned District Judge was erroneous. He pointed out that even if the wife had not been able to make good her plea of cruelty on the part of the husband, it would nevertheless be the duty of the court to see in terms of Sub-section (1) to Section 9. if the husband had discharged his obligations namely, of showing that the wife was staying away without reasonable cause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned Judge has already referred to some observations in AIR 1969 Punjab 1962. which are to the following effect :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'That even if the conduct of the husband is found short of legal cruelty of the kind mentioned in Section 10(8) of the Hindu Marriage Act his misbehaviour or misconduct towards the wife was enough to justify her separation from him.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It may be noted that that was no doubt a case under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and not one under Section 9 thereof, but the learned Judge has considered the question whether there was anv reasonable excuse for the wife to stay away from the husband. The question whether conduct falling short of cruelty or anv other matrimonial offence can justify one spouse in leaving another has been much debated in England and judicial opinion on the question is not wholly uniform. But the more recent and acceptable view seems to be that the 'just cause' must be 'grave and weighty' or as it is sometimes said 'grave and convincing' and that it may be distinct from a matrimonial offence. It may be distinct from cruelty to the extent that it falls short of or is less than legal cruelty but none the less the reasons forj withdrawal from, the society of the petitioner must be grave and weighty. In Timmins v. Timmins, (1953) 2 All ER 187, the husband was not found guilty of cruelty but his conduct was grave and weighty which gave the wife good cause for leaving him and prevented him from obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights unless and until he satisfied the court that, if she returned to him he would behave with conjugal kindness and this was. therefore, held to be a defence to the husband's petition for restitution (vide Mulla's Commentary on Hindu Law, 13th Edition, at page 643). The reasons for a wife to stay away from the husband have nonetheless to be grave and weighty even though they may not amount to legal cruelty. The question then is whether any grave and weighty reasons are there for the wife to stay away from the husband. The learned District Judge has considered the matter under issue No. 2 and has reached the conclusion that the wife had no reasonable excuse for refusing to live with the husband. I have no good reason to take a different view.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The appeal has thus no force. Accordingly, I hereby dismiss it, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1973Raj20; 1972()WLN392',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Ajaib Singh',
			'sub' => 'Family;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '750812'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Ajaib Singh Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 1 => 'the Hindu Marriage Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 10',
		(int) 3 => 'the Hindu Marriage Act',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 9'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Kan Singh',
		(int) 1 => 'Ganganagar',
		(int) 2 => 'P. S. Tehsil Raisinghnagar',
		(int) 3 => 'D. W. 1',
		(int) 4 => 'W. 3 Bidar Singh',
		(int) 5 => 'D. W. 1 Smt',
		(int) 6 => 'Panchas',
		(int) 7 => 'Pri',
		(int) 8 => 'Singh D. W. 2',
		(int) 9 => 'Didar Singh D',
		(int) 10 => 'Dolat Singh',
		(int) 11 => 'Didar Singh D. W. 3',
		(int) 12 => 'Dolat Singh',
		(int) 13 => 'Dolat Singh',
		(int) 14 => 'Tej Singh'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'D.'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '31',
		(int) 1 => '5',
		(int) 2 => 'two',
		(int) 3 => '2',
		(int) 4 => '3.',
		(int) 5 => '2',
		(int) 6 => 'only two',
		(int) 7 => 'two',
		(int) 8 => 'only two',
		(int) 9 => 'two',
		(int) 10 => '3',
		(int) 11 => '1',
		(int) 12 => 'one',
		(int) 13 => '2',
		(int) 14 => '187',
		(int) 15 => '643',
		(int) 16 => '2'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sikh',
		(int) 1 => 'AIR',
		(int) 2 => 'Smt',
		(int) 3 => 'AIR 1969 Punjab',
		(int) 4 => 'Mulla'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1-7-1964',
		(int) 1 => '28-12-1965',
		(int) 2 => 'the first week of February, 1966',
		(int) 3 => 'between November.',
		(int) 4 => '1963',
		(int) 5 => 'January',
		(int) 6 => '1964',
		(int) 7 => 'January, 1964',
		(int) 8 => 'one year',
		(int) 9 => 'between July, 1965 and',
		(int) 10 => 'November',
		(int) 11 => '1959',
		(int) 12 => 'about a year',
		(int) 13 => 'the whole day',
		(int) 14 => 'almost 8 months',
		(int) 15 => '5 or 6 months',
		(int) 16 => '5 or 6 months',
		(int) 17 => 'the whole day',
		(int) 18 => '6 months',
		(int) 19 => '5 or 6 months',
		(int) 20 => 'the last 9 or 10 months',
		(int) 21 => '1962',
		(int) 22 => 'Section 10(8',
		(int) 23 => '1953'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'first',
		(int) 2 => 'second',
		(int) 3 => 'second',
		(int) 4 => 'second'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Satya',
		(int) 1 => 'Singh',
		(int) 2 => 'Satya',
		(int) 3 => 'England'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '750812',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50935/hindu-marriage-act-1955-complete-act">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955</a> - Sections 9',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 1968',
		'appellant' => 'Smt. Satya Devi',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Ajaib Singh',
		'casenote' => 'Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9 &amp; 10 Cruelty not proved by wife--'Just cause' for wife not giving company should be grave and weighty.;The 'just cause' must be 'grave and weighty' or as it is sometimes said 'grave and convincing' and that it may be distinct from a matrimonial offence. The reasons for a wife to stay away from the husband have nonetheless to be grave and weighty even though they may not amount to legal cruelly. - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. Section 2(s): [M.S. Shah, Sharad D. Dave & K.S. Jhaveri,JJ] Workman  Part time employees  Held, Part time employees are not excluded from the definition of workman in Section 2(s) merely on the ground that they are part time employees. The ex abundante cautela use of the words either whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The control test is one of the important tests, but is not to be taken as the sole test. It is also required to be examined whether the person was fully integrated into the employers concern or has remained apart from and independent of it. The other facts which may be relevant are as to who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, to organize the work, etc. A full time worker usually works in a week for 40 hours or more depending on the award or agreement. If a person falls under the definition of workman under Section 2(s) and does not fall in any excluded category, he will be covered by the definition of workman under the I.D. Act, and he will be entitled to all the benefits under the said Act. A perusal of Section 2(s) indicates that it does not specifically refer to a part-time workman nor does it specifically exclude a part-time workman from the definition of :workman. Since the number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of workman or not, it cannot be said that a part-time worker is not a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the I.D. Act. However, to decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered. The control test, the integration test and all the other relevant tests are as much applicable for deciding the status of a person rendering service on part-time basis as these tests are required to be applied for deciding the status of a person rendering the services on full-time basis. Since persons may be engaged for part-time work for various reasons, while deciding the question whether a person rendering services on part-time basis is a workman or not, the nature of the industry, the nature of services being rendered by the person, the terms and conditions of engagement and various other factors will have to be taken into consideration before coming to the conclusion whether such a person falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration.  -  He had told her several times that he was not satisfied with her and would marry another girl. He held that the wife had failed to prove that the husband was guilty of cruelty towards the wife as alleged by her. 2 he also considered the question whether in spite of the wife's failure to establish legal cruelty on the part of the husband there was still a reasonable cause for the wife's not returning to the husband The learned Judge considered AIR 1959 Punj 162 for this and came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable excuse for the wife to withdraw from the society of the husband. Satya had stated that after the marriage she was treated well by her husband for about a year, but thereafter he started maltreating her saying that she was of a black complexion and. I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned District Judge in holding that the wife had failed to establish cruelty on the part of the husband. He pointed out that even if the wife had not been able to make good her plea of cruelty on the part of the husband, it would nevertheless be the duty of the court to see in terms of Sub-section (1) to Section 9. if the husband had discharged his obligations namely, of showing that the wife was staying away without reasonable cause. Timmins, (1953) 2 All ER 187, the husband was not found guilty of cruelty but his conduct was grave and weighty which gave the wife good cause for leaving him and prevented him from obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights unless and until he satisfied the court that, if she returned to him he would behave with conjugal kindness and this was. I have no good reason to take a different view.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Timmins v. Timmins;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mangha Ram, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K.N. Tikku, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1972-04-14',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Kan Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Kan Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a wife's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Ganganagar dated 31-1-1968 granting conjugal rights to the husband and directing that the wife snail return and live with the husband.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The parties were a young couple. They were married according to the Sikh rites on 5-10-1962 at Chak 16, P. S. Tehsil Raisinghnagar. A son was born on 1-7-1964 to the parties. The petitioning husband averred that the wife had gone to see her parents on 28-12-1965, but had thereafter never returned to him. According to him. he went to fetch the wife in the first week of February, 1966. but she refused to come with him without any reasonable excuse. The wife contested the application. She denied that her husband had come to take her away. She pleaded cruelty on his part. According to her. the husband was a drunkard and was not faithful to the wife. He had told her several times that he was not satisfied with her and would marry another girl. The husband wanted the wife's consent for this, but she was not agreeable to the husband taking another wife. It was for this reason that the husband started maltreating the wife. The wife alleged that the husband had on diverse occasions, between November. 1963 and January. 1964 beaten her and treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be injurious for her to live with the husband. She proceeded to say that in January, 1964 the husband had forcibly sent, her away to her father's home in Chak 16 P. S. She therefore, remained at her father's house for one year. Thereafter on persuasion of certain Panchas the husband took the wife to his own house, but he again started maltreating her. The husband was alleged to have beaten her several times between July, 1965 and November. 1965.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Then the husband sent her back to her father's house and since then she had been residing there. The learned District Judge framed the following two Issues :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Is the petitioner guilty of cruelty towards the respondent as alleged by her in her written statement?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) To what relief is she entitled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The wife examined herself as D. W. 1 and produced D. W. 2 Pritam Singh and D, W. 3 Bidar Singh in support of her version. In rebuttal the husband examined himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned District Judge con-eidered the evidence led by the parties. He held that the wife had failed to prove that the husband was guilty of cruelty towards the wife as alleged by her. Under issue No. 2 he also considered the question whether in spite of the wife's failure to establish legal cruelty on the part of the husband there was still a reasonable cause for the wife's not returning to the husband The learned Judge considered AIR 1959 Punj 162 for this and came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable excuse for the wife to withdraw from the society of the husband.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have been taken through the entire evidence on record by learned counsel and I may first deal with it. In her statement as D. W. 1 Smt. Satya had stated that after the marriage she was treated well by her husband for about a year, but thereafter he started maltreating her saying that she was of a black complexion and. therefore, he would be taking another wife. She then stated that only two 'Rotis' would be given to her to eat for the whole day and she used to be kept confined in the room.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The incidents between them would fall in two parts. On the first occasion when prior to the child's birth she was maltreated she left for her father's house. Then she gave birth to the child. Thereafter she lived with her parents for almost 8 months. Then on the persuasion of certain Panchas the husband took her away to his house and then they again lived together for 5 or 6 months. During this period of 5 or 6 months she had again been treated with cruelty and used to be given only two 'Rotis' to eat for the whole day. Then her father and a few Panchas again came to the house of the husband. At that time the husband told the Panchas to take away the wife and then she was taken away to the house of the wife's parents. Now. what is important is whether the behaviour of the husband has been shown to be cruel for the second period, because it is obvious that when the parties had patched up earlier they seem to have forgotten and forgiven each other. Such things do happen in the wear and tear of a normal married life. We have, therefore, to see as to how the husband had treated the wife after she had been taken to the husband's home with the child. Now. regarding the husband or his people under-feeding the wife, it is enough to sav that she has not said anything of the kind in her written statement. One cannot, therefore, put faith regarding this assertion on her testimony. Then let us look to the two witnesses examined by her namely, Pri-tam Singh D. W. 2 and Didar Singh D, W. 3. These witnesses are not at all helpful for showing that the husband was treating the wife with cruelty on the second occasion. Pritam Singh was told by Dolat Singh that the husband was beating the wife. It is nothing but hearsay. He also stated that Smt. Satya had been telling the same thing. That again is hearsay. This is about the incident earlier to the birth of the child. Regard-ins the second period this witness has not said anything. He had only stated that the wife had gone to her husband's home and had lived there for 6 months and thereafter she had again started living with her parents and none had come to take her back. Didar Singh D. W. 3 had also stated that Dolat Singh had told him that the husband was beating the wife and had left her at his house. Thereafter a son was born to the wife. Then the husband had taken away the wife and the wife had lived at husband's house for 5 or 6 months. Then the witness, Dolat Singh and Tej Singh had gone to the husband's home. These persons told the husband not to beat the wife, but the husband said he wanted to have another marriage and. therefore, he would not be keeping the wife. Then these persons had brought the wife to her father's house where she had been living for the last 9 or 10 months. He added that none had come to take back the wife. This witness is also not helpful for showing that the husband had beaten his wife. I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned District Judge in holding that the wife had failed to establish cruelty on the part of the husband.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the whole approach of the learned District Judge was erroneous. He pointed out that even if the wife had not been able to make good her plea of cruelty on the part of the husband, it would nevertheless be the duty of the court to see in terms of Sub-section (1) to Section 9. if the husband had discharged his obligations namely, of showing that the wife was staying away without reasonable cause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned Judge has already referred to some observations in AIR 1969 Punjab 1962. which are to the following effect :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'That even if the conduct of the husband is found short of legal cruelty of the kind mentioned in Section 10(8) of the Hindu Marriage Act his misbehaviour or misconduct towards the wife was enough to justify her separation from him.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It may be noted that that was no doubt a case under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and not one under Section 9 thereof, but the learned Judge has considered the question whether there was anv reasonable excuse for the wife to stay away from the husband. The question whether conduct falling short of cruelty or anv other matrimonial offence can justify one spouse in leaving another has been much debated in England and judicial opinion on the question is not wholly uniform. But the more recent and acceptable view seems to be that the 'just cause' must be 'grave and weighty' or as it is sometimes said 'grave and convincing' and that it may be distinct from a matrimonial offence. It may be distinct from cruelty to the extent that it falls short of or is less than legal cruelty but none the less the reasons forj withdrawal from, the society of the petitioner must be grave and weighty. In Timmins v. Timmins, (1953) 2 All ER 187, the husband was not found guilty of cruelty but his conduct was grave and weighty which gave the wife good cause for leaving him and prevented him from obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights unless and until he satisfied the court that, if she returned to him he would behave with conjugal kindness and this was. therefore, held to be a defence to the husband's petition for restitution (vide Mulla's Commentary on Hindu Law, 13th Edition, at page 643). The reasons for a wife to stay away from the husband have nonetheless to be grave and weighty even though they may not amount to legal cruelty. The question then is whether any grave and weighty reasons are there for the wife to stay away from the husband. The learned District Judge has considered the matter under issue No. 2 and has reached the conclusion that the wife had no reasonable excuse for refusing to live with the husband. I have no good reason to take a different view.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The appeal has thus no force. Accordingly, I hereby dismiss it, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1973Raj20; 1972()WLN392',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Ajaib Singh',
		'sub' => 'Family;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '750812'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Ajaib Singh Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 1 => 'the Hindu Marriage Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 10',
			(int) 3 => 'the Hindu Marriage Act',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 9'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Kan Singh',
			(int) 1 => 'Ganganagar',
			(int) 2 => 'P. S. Tehsil Raisinghnagar',
			(int) 3 => 'D. W. 1',
			(int) 4 => 'W. 3 Bidar Singh',
			(int) 5 => 'D. W. 1 Smt',
			(int) 6 => 'Panchas',
			(int) 7 => 'Pri',
			(int) 8 => 'Singh D. W. 2',
			(int) 9 => 'Didar Singh D',
			(int) 10 => 'Dolat Singh',
			(int) 11 => 'Didar Singh D. W. 3',
			(int) 12 => 'Dolat Singh',
			(int) 13 => 'Dolat Singh',
			(int) 14 => 'Tej Singh'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'D.'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '31',
			(int) 1 => '5',
			(int) 2 => 'two',
			(int) 3 => '2',
			(int) 4 => '3.',
			(int) 5 => '2',
			(int) 6 => 'only two',
			(int) 7 => 'two',
			(int) 8 => 'only two',
			(int) 9 => 'two',
			(int) 10 => '3',
			(int) 11 => '1',
			(int) 12 => 'one',
			(int) 13 => '2',
			(int) 14 => '187',
			(int) 15 => '643',
			(int) 16 => '2'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sikh',
			(int) 1 => 'AIR',
			(int) 2 => 'Smt',
			(int) 3 => 'AIR 1969 Punjab',
			(int) 4 => 'Mulla'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1-7-1964',
			(int) 1 => '28-12-1965',
			(int) 2 => 'the first week of February, 1966',
			(int) 3 => 'between November.',
			(int) 4 => '1963',
			(int) 5 => 'January',
			(int) 6 => '1964',
			(int) 7 => 'January, 1964',
			(int) 8 => 'one year',
			(int) 9 => 'between July, 1965 and',
			(int) 10 => 'November',
			(int) 11 => '1959',
			(int) 12 => 'about a year',
			(int) 13 => 'the whole day',
			(int) 14 => 'almost 8 months',
			(int) 15 => '5 or 6 months',
			(int) 16 => '5 or 6 months',
			(int) 17 => 'the whole day',
			(int) 18 => '6 months',
			(int) 19 => '5 or 6 months',
			(int) 20 => 'the last 9 or 10 months',
			(int) 21 => '1962',
			(int) 22 => 'Section 10(8',
			(int) 23 => '1953'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'first',
			(int) 2 => 'second',
			(int) 3 => 'second',
			(int) 4 => 'second'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Satya',
			(int) 1 => 'Singh',
			(int) 2 => 'Satya',
			(int) 3 => 'England'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '750812',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50935/hindu-marriage-act-1955-complete-act">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955</a> - Sections 9',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 1968',
			'appellant' => 'Smt. Satya Devi',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Ajaib Singh',
			'casenote' => 'Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9 &amp; 10 Cruelty not proved by wife--'Just cause' for wife not giving company should be grave and weighty.;The 'just cause' must be 'grave and weighty' or as it is sometimes said 'grave and convincing' and that it may be distinct from a matrimonial offence. The reasons for a wife to stay away from the husband have nonetheless to be grave and weighty even though they may not amount to legal cruelly. - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. Section 2(s): [M.S. Shah, Sharad D. Dave & K.S. Jhaveri,JJ] Workman  Part time employees  Held, Part time employees are not excluded from the definition of workman in Section 2(s) merely on the ground that they are part time employees. The ex abundante cautela use of the words either whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The control test is one of the important tests, but is not to be taken as the sole test. It is also required to be examined whether the person was fully integrated into the employers concern or has remained apart from and independent of it. The other facts which may be relevant are as to who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, to organize the work, etc. A full time worker usually works in a week for 40 hours or more depending on the award or agreement. If a person falls under the definition of workman under Section 2(s) and does not fall in any excluded category, he will be covered by the definition of workman under the I.D. Act, and he will be entitled to all the benefits under the said Act. A perusal of Section 2(s) indicates that it does not specifically refer to a part-time workman nor does it specifically exclude a part-time workman from the definition of :workman. Since the number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of workman or not, it cannot be said that a part-time worker is not a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the I.D. Act. However, to decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered. The control test, the integration test and all the other relevant tests are as much applicable for deciding the status of a person rendering service on part-time basis as these tests are required to be applied for deciding the status of a person rendering the services on full-time basis. Since persons may be engaged for part-time work for various reasons, while deciding the question whether a person rendering services on part-time basis is a workman or not, the nature of the industry, the nature of services being rendered by the person, the terms and conditions of engagement and various other factors will have to be taken into consideration before coming to the conclusion whether such a person falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration.  -  He had told her several times that he was not satisfied with her and would marry another girl. He held that the wife had failed to prove that the husband was guilty of cruelty towards the wife as alleged by her. 2 he also considered the question whether in spite of the wife's failure to establish legal cruelty on the part of the husband there was still a reasonable cause for the wife's not returning to the husband The learned Judge considered AIR 1959 Punj 162 for this and came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable excuse for the wife to withdraw from the society of the husband. Satya had stated that after the marriage she was treated well by her husband for about a year, but thereafter he started maltreating her saying that she was of a black complexion and. I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned District Judge in holding that the wife had failed to establish cruelty on the part of the husband. He pointed out that even if the wife had not been able to make good her plea of cruelty on the part of the husband, it would nevertheless be the duty of the court to see in terms of Sub-section (1) to Section 9. if the husband had discharged his obligations namely, of showing that the wife was staying away without reasonable cause. Timmins, (1953) 2 All ER 187, the husband was not found guilty of cruelty but his conduct was grave and weighty which gave the wife good cause for leaving him and prevented him from obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights unless and until he satisfied the court that, if she returned to him he would behave with conjugal kindness and this was. I have no good reason to take a different view.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Timmins v. Timmins;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Mangha Ram, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' K.N. Tikku, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1972-04-14',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Kan Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Kan Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a wife's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Ganganagar dated 31-1-1968 granting conjugal rights to the husband and directing that the wife snail return and live with the husband.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The parties were a young couple. They were married according to the Sikh rites on 5-10-1962 at Chak 16, P. S. Tehsil Raisinghnagar. A son was born on 1-7-1964 to the parties. The petitioning husband averred that the wife had gone to see her parents on 28-12-1965, but had thereafter never returned to him. According to him. he went to fetch the wife in the first week of February, 1966. but she refused to come with him without any reasonable excuse. The wife contested the application. She denied that her husband had come to take her away. She pleaded cruelty on his part. According to her. the husband was a drunkard and was not faithful to the wife. He had told her several times that he was not satisfied with her and would marry another girl. The husband wanted the wife's consent for this, but she was not agreeable to the husband taking another wife. It was for this reason that the husband started maltreating the wife. The wife alleged that the husband had on diverse occasions, between November. 1963 and January. 1964 beaten her and treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be injurious for her to live with the husband. She proceeded to say that in January, 1964 the husband had forcibly sent, her away to her father's home in Chak 16 P. S. She therefore, remained at her father's house for one year. Thereafter on persuasion of certain Panchas the husband took the wife to his own house, but he again started maltreating her. The husband was alleged to have beaten her several times between July, 1965 and November. 1965.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Then the husband sent her back to her father's house and since then she had been residing there. The learned District Judge framed the following two Issues :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Is the petitioner guilty of cruelty towards the respondent as alleged by her in her written statement?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) To what relief is she entitled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The wife examined herself as D. W. 1 and produced D. W. 2 Pritam Singh and D, W. 3 Bidar Singh in support of her version. In rebuttal the husband examined himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned District Judge con-eidered the evidence led by the parties. He held that the wife had failed to prove that the husband was guilty of cruelty towards the wife as alleged by her. Under issue No. 2 he also considered the question whether in spite of the wife's failure to establish legal cruelty on the part of the husband there was still a reasonable cause for the wife's not returning to the husband The learned Judge considered AIR 1959 Punj 162 for this and came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable excuse for the wife to withdraw from the society of the husband.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have been taken through the entire evidence on record by learned counsel and I may first deal with it. In her statement as D. W. 1 Smt. Satya had stated that after the marriage she was treated well by her husband for about a year, but thereafter he started maltreating her saying that she was of a black complexion and. therefore, he would be taking another wife. She then stated that only two 'Rotis' would be given to her to eat for the whole day and she used to be kept confined in the room.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The incidents between them would fall in two parts. On the first occasion when prior to the child's birth she was maltreated she left for her father's house. Then she gave birth to the child. Thereafter she lived with her parents for almost 8 months. Then on the persuasion of certain Panchas the husband took her away to his house and then they again lived together for 5 or 6 months. During this period of 5 or 6 months she had again been treated with cruelty and used to be given only two 'Rotis' to eat for the whole day. Then her father and a few Panchas again came to the house of the husband. At that time the husband told the Panchas to take away the wife and then she was taken away to the house of the wife's parents. Now. what is important is whether the behaviour of the husband has been shown to be cruel for the second period, because it is obvious that when the parties had patched up earlier they seem to have forgotten and forgiven each other. Such things do happen in the wear and tear of a normal married life. We have, therefore, to see as to how the husband had treated the wife after she had been taken to the husband's home with the child. Now. regarding the husband or his people under-feeding the wife, it is enough to sav that she has not said anything of the kind in her written statement. One cannot, therefore, put faith regarding this assertion on her testimony. Then let us look to the two witnesses examined by her namely, Pri-tam Singh D. W. 2 and Didar Singh D, W. 3. These witnesses are not at all helpful for showing that the husband was treating the wife with cruelty on the second occasion. Pritam Singh was told by Dolat Singh that the husband was beating the wife. It is nothing but hearsay. He also stated that Smt. Satya had been telling the same thing. That again is hearsay. This is about the incident earlier to the birth of the child. Regard-ins the second period this witness has not said anything. He had only stated that the wife had gone to her husband's home and had lived there for 6 months and thereafter she had again started living with her parents and none had come to take her back. Didar Singh D. W. 3 had also stated that Dolat Singh had told him that the husband was beating the wife and had left her at his house. Thereafter a son was born to the wife. Then the husband had taken away the wife and the wife had lived at husband's house for 5 or 6 months. Then the witness, Dolat Singh and Tej Singh had gone to the husband's home. These persons told the husband not to beat the wife, but the husband said he wanted to have another marriage and. therefore, he would not be keeping the wife. Then these persons had brought the wife to her father's house where she had been living for the last 9 or 10 months. He added that none had come to take back the wife. This witness is also not helpful for showing that the husband had beaten his wife. I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned District Judge in holding that the wife had failed to establish cruelty on the part of the husband.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the whole approach of the learned District Judge was erroneous. He pointed out that even if the wife had not been able to make good her plea of cruelty on the part of the husband, it would nevertheless be the duty of the court to see in terms of Sub-section (1) to Section 9. if the husband had discharged his obligations namely, of showing that the wife was staying away without reasonable cause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned Judge has already referred to some observations in AIR 1969 Punjab 1962. which are to the following effect :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'That even if the conduct of the husband is found short of legal cruelty of the kind mentioned in Section 10(8) of the Hindu Marriage Act his misbehaviour or misconduct towards the wife was enough to justify her separation from him.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It may be noted that that was no doubt a case under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and not one under Section 9 thereof, but the learned Judge has considered the question whether there was anv reasonable excuse for the wife to stay away from the husband. The question whether conduct falling short of cruelty or anv other matrimonial offence can justify one spouse in leaving another has been much debated in England and judicial opinion on the question is not wholly uniform. But the more recent and acceptable view seems to be that the 'just cause' must be 'grave and weighty' or as it is sometimes said 'grave and convincing' and that it may be distinct from a matrimonial offence. It may be distinct from cruelty to the extent that it falls short of or is less than legal cruelty but none the less the reasons forj withdrawal from, the society of the petitioner must be grave and weighty. In Timmins v. Timmins, (1953) 2 All ER 187, the husband was not found guilty of cruelty but his conduct was grave and weighty which gave the wife good cause for leaving him and prevented him from obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights unless and until he satisfied the court that, if she returned to him he would behave with conjugal kindness and this was. therefore, held to be a defence to the husband's petition for restitution (vide Mulla's Commentary on Hindu Law, 13th Edition, at page 643). The reasons for a wife to stay away from the husband have nonetheless to be grave and weighty even though they may not amount to legal cruelty. The question then is whether any grave and weighty reasons are there for the wife to stay away from the husband. The learned District Judge has considered the matter under issue No. 2 and has reached the conclusion that the wife had no reasonable excuse for refusing to live with the husband. I have no good reason to take a different view.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The appeal has thus no force. Accordingly, I hereby dismiss it, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1973Raj20; 1972()WLN392',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Ajaib Singh',
			'sub' => 'Family;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '750812'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Ajaib Singh Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 1 => 'the Hindu Marriage Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 10',
		(int) 3 => 'the Hindu Marriage Act',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 9'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Kan Singh',
		(int) 1 => 'Ganganagar',
		(int) 2 => 'P. S. Tehsil Raisinghnagar',
		(int) 3 => 'D. W. 1',
		(int) 4 => 'W. 3 Bidar Singh',
		(int) 5 => 'D. W. 1 Smt',
		(int) 6 => 'Panchas',
		(int) 7 => 'Pri',
		(int) 8 => 'Singh D. W. 2',
		(int) 9 => 'Didar Singh D',
		(int) 10 => 'Dolat Singh',
		(int) 11 => 'Didar Singh D. W. 3',
		(int) 12 => 'Dolat Singh',
		(int) 13 => 'Dolat Singh',
		(int) 14 => 'Tej Singh'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'D.'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '31',
		(int) 1 => '5',
		(int) 2 => 'two',
		(int) 3 => '2',
		(int) 4 => '3.',
		(int) 5 => '2',
		(int) 6 => 'only two',
		(int) 7 => 'two',
		(int) 8 => 'only two',
		(int) 9 => 'two',
		(int) 10 => '3',
		(int) 11 => '1',
		(int) 12 => 'one',
		(int) 13 => '2',
		(int) 14 => '187',
		(int) 15 => '643',
		(int) 16 => '2'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sikh',
		(int) 1 => 'AIR',
		(int) 2 => 'Smt',
		(int) 3 => 'AIR 1969 Punjab',
		(int) 4 => 'Mulla'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1-7-1964',
		(int) 1 => '28-12-1965',
		(int) 2 => 'the first week of February, 1966',
		(int) 3 => 'between November.',
		(int) 4 => '1963',
		(int) 5 => 'January',
		(int) 6 => '1964',
		(int) 7 => 'January, 1964',
		(int) 8 => 'one year',
		(int) 9 => 'between July, 1965 and',
		(int) 10 => 'November',
		(int) 11 => '1959',
		(int) 12 => 'about a year',
		(int) 13 => 'the whole day',
		(int) 14 => 'almost 8 months',
		(int) 15 => '5 or 6 months',
		(int) 16 => '5 or 6 months',
		(int) 17 => 'the whole day',
		(int) 18 => '6 months',
		(int) 19 => '5 or 6 months',
		(int) 20 => 'the last 9 or 10 months',
		(int) 21 => '1962',
		(int) 22 => 'Section 10(8',
		(int) 23 => '1953'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'first',
		(int) 2 => 'second',
		(int) 3 => 'second',
		(int) 4 => 'second'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Satya',
		(int) 1 => 'Singh',
		(int) 2 => 'Satya',
		(int) 3 => 'England'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '750812',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50935/hindu-marriage-act-1955-complete-act">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955</a> - Sections 9',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 1968',
		'appellant' => 'Smt. Satya Devi',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Ajaib Singh',
		'casenote' => 'Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9 &amp; 10 Cruelty not proved by wife--'Just cause' for wife not giving company should be grave and weighty.;The 'just cause' must be 'grave and weighty' or as it is sometimes said 'grave and convincing' and that it may be distinct from a matrimonial offence. The reasons for a wife to stay away from the husband have nonetheless to be grave and weighty even though they may not amount to legal cruelly. - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. Section 2(s): [M.S. Shah, Sharad D. Dave & K.S. Jhaveri,JJ] Workman  Part time employees  Held, Part time employees are not excluded from the definition of workman in Section 2(s) merely on the ground that they are part time employees. The ex abundante cautela use of the words either whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The control test is one of the important tests, but is not to be taken as the sole test. It is also required to be examined whether the person was fully integrated into the employers concern or has remained apart from and independent of it. The other facts which may be relevant are as to who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, to organize the work, etc. A full time worker usually works in a week for 40 hours or more depending on the award or agreement. If a person falls under the definition of workman under Section 2(s) and does not fall in any excluded category, he will be covered by the definition of workman under the I.D. Act, and he will be entitled to all the benefits under the said Act. A perusal of Section 2(s) indicates that it does not specifically refer to a part-time workman nor does it specifically exclude a part-time workman from the definition of :workman. Since the number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of workman or not, it cannot be said that a part-time worker is not a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the I.D. Act. However, to decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered. The control test, the integration test and all the other relevant tests are as much applicable for deciding the status of a person rendering service on part-time basis as these tests are required to be applied for deciding the status of a person rendering the services on full-time basis. Since persons may be engaged for part-time work for various reasons, while deciding the question whether a person rendering services on part-time basis is a workman or not, the nature of the industry, the nature of services being rendered by the person, the terms and conditions of engagement and various other factors will have to be taken into consideration before coming to the conclusion whether such a person falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration.  -  He had told her several times that he was not satisfied with her and would marry another girl. He held that the wife had failed to prove that the husband was guilty of cruelty towards the wife as alleged by her. 2 he also considered the question whether in spite of the wife's failure to establish legal cruelty on the part of the husband there was still a reasonable cause for the wife's not returning to the husband The learned Judge considered AIR 1959 Punj 162 for this and came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable excuse for the wife to withdraw from the society of the husband. Satya had stated that after the marriage she was treated well by her husband for about a year, but thereafter he started maltreating her saying that she was of a black complexion and. I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned District Judge in holding that the wife had failed to establish cruelty on the part of the husband. He pointed out that even if the wife had not been able to make good her plea of cruelty on the part of the husband, it would nevertheless be the duty of the court to see in terms of Sub-section (1) to Section 9. if the husband had discharged his obligations namely, of showing that the wife was staying away without reasonable cause. Timmins, (1953) 2 All ER 187, the husband was not found guilty of cruelty but his conduct was grave and weighty which gave the wife good cause for leaving him and prevented him from obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights unless and until he satisfied the court that, if she returned to him he would behave with conjugal kindness and this was. I have no good reason to take a different view.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Timmins v. Timmins;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Mangha Ram, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' K.N. Tikku, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1972-04-14',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Kan Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Kan Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a wife's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Ganganagar dated 31-1-1968 granting conjugal rights to the husband and directing that the wife snail return and live with the husband.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The parties were a young couple. They were married according to the Sikh rites on 5-10-1962 at Chak 16, P. S. Tehsil Raisinghnagar. A son was born on 1-7-1964 to the parties. The petitioning husband averred that the wife had gone to see her parents on 28-12-1965, but had thereafter never returned to him. According to him. he went to fetch the wife in the first week of February, 1966. but she refused to come with him without any reasonable excuse. The wife contested the application. She denied that her husband had come to take her away. She pleaded cruelty on his part. According to her. the husband was a drunkard and was not faithful to the wife. He had told her several times that he was not satisfied with her and would marry another girl. The husband wanted the wife's consent for this, but she was not agreeable to the husband taking another wife. It was for this reason that the husband started maltreating the wife. The wife alleged that the husband had on diverse occasions, between November. 1963 and January. 1964 beaten her and treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be injurious for her to live with the husband. She proceeded to say that in January, 1964 the husband had forcibly sent, her away to her father's home in Chak 16 P. S. She therefore, remained at her father's house for one year. Thereafter on persuasion of certain Panchas the husband took the wife to his own house, but he again started maltreating her. The husband was alleged to have beaten her several times between July, 1965 and November. 1965.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Then the husband sent her back to her father's house and since then she had been residing there. The learned District Judge framed the following two Issues :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Is the petitioner guilty of cruelty towards the respondent as alleged by her in her written statement?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) To what relief is she entitled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The wife examined herself as D. W. 1 and produced D. W. 2 Pritam Singh and D, W. 3 Bidar Singh in support of her version. In rebuttal the husband examined himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned District Judge con-eidered the evidence led by the parties. He held that the wife had failed to prove that the husband was guilty of cruelty towards the wife as alleged by her. Under issue No. 2 he also considered the question whether in spite of the wife's failure to establish legal cruelty on the part of the husband there was still a reasonable cause for the wife's not returning to the husband The learned Judge considered AIR 1959 Punj 162 for this and came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable excuse for the wife to withdraw from the society of the husband.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have been taken through the entire evidence on record by learned counsel and I may first deal with it. In her statement as D. W. 1 Smt. Satya had stated that after the marriage she was treated well by her husband for about a year, but thereafter he started maltreating her saying that she was of a black complexion and. therefore, he would be taking another wife. She then stated that only two 'Rotis' would be given to her to eat for the whole day and she used to be kept confined in the room.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The incidents between them would fall in two parts. On the first occasion when prior to the child's birth she was maltreated she left for her father's house. Then she gave birth to the child. Thereafter she lived with her parents for almost 8 months. Then on the persuasion of certain Panchas the husband took her away to his house and then they again lived together for 5 or 6 months. During this period of 5 or 6 months she had again been treated with cruelty and used to be given only two 'Rotis' to eat for the whole day. Then her father and a few Panchas again came to the house of the husband. At that time the husband told the Panchas to take away the wife and then she was taken away to the house of the wife's parents. Now. what is important is whether the behaviour of the husband has been shown to be cruel for the second period, because it is obvious that when the parties had patched up earlier they seem to have forgotten and forgiven each other. Such things do happen in the wear and tear of a normal married life. We have, therefore, to see as to how the husband had treated the wife after she had been taken to the husband's home with the child. Now. regarding the husband or his people under-feeding the wife, it is enough to sav that she has not said anything of the kind in her written statement. One cannot, therefore, put faith regarding this assertion on her testimony. Then let us look to the two witnesses examined by her namely, Pri-tam Singh D. W. 2 and Didar Singh D, W. 3. These witnesses are not at all helpful for showing that the husband was treating the wife with cruelty on the second occasion. Pritam Singh was told by Dolat Singh that the husband was beating the wife. It is nothing but hearsay. He also stated that Smt. Satya had been telling the same thing. That again is hearsay. This is about the incident earlier to the birth of the child. Regard-ins the second period this witness has not said anything. He had only stated that the wife had gone to her husband's home and had lived there for 6 months and thereafter she had again started living with her parents and none had come to take her back. Didar Singh D. W. 3 had also stated that Dolat Singh had told him that the husband was beating the wife and had left her at his house. Thereafter a son was born to the wife. Then the husband had taken away the wife and the wife had lived at husband's house for 5 or 6 months. Then the witness, Dolat Singh and Tej Singh had gone to the husband's home. These persons told the husband not to beat the wife, but the husband said he wanted to have another marriage and. therefore, he would not be keeping the wife. Then these persons had brought the wife to her father's house where she had been living for the last 9 or 10 months. He added that none had come to take back the wife. This witness is also not helpful for showing that the husband had beaten his wife. I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned District Judge in holding that the wife had failed to establish cruelty on the part of the husband.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the whole approach of the learned District Judge was erroneous. He pointed out that even if the wife had not been able to make good her plea of cruelty on the part of the husband, it would nevertheless be the duty of the court to see in terms of Sub-section (1) to Section 9. if the husband had discharged his obligations namely, of showing that the wife was staying away without reasonable cause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned Judge has already referred to some observations in AIR 1969 Punjab 1962. which are to the following effect :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'That even if the conduct of the husband is found short of legal cruelty of the kind mentioned in Section 10(8) of the Hindu Marriage Act his misbehaviour or misconduct towards the wife was enough to justify her separation from him.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It may be noted that that was no doubt a case under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and not one under Section 9 thereof, but the learned Judge has considered the question whether there was anv reasonable excuse for the wife to stay away from the husband. The question whether conduct falling short of cruelty or anv other matrimonial offence can justify one spouse in leaving another has been much debated in England and judicial opinion on the question is not wholly uniform. But the more recent and acceptable view seems to be that the 'just cause' must be 'grave and weighty' or as it is sometimes said 'grave and convincing' and that it may be distinct from a matrimonial offence. It may be distinct from cruelty to the extent that it falls short of or is less than legal cruelty but none the less the reasons forj withdrawal from, the society of the petitioner must be grave and weighty. In Timmins v. Timmins, (1953) 2 All ER 187, the husband was not found guilty of cruelty but his conduct was grave and weighty which gave the wife good cause for leaving him and prevented him from obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights unless and until he satisfied the court that, if she returned to him he would behave with conjugal kindness and this was. therefore, held to be a defence to the husband's petition for restitution (vide Mulla's Commentary on Hindu Law, 13th Edition, at page 643). The reasons for a wife to stay away from the husband have nonetheless to be grave and weighty even though they may not amount to legal cruelty. The question then is whether any grave and weighty reasons are there for the wife to stay away from the husband. The learned District Judge has considered the matter under issue No. 2 and has reached the conclusion that the wife had no reasonable excuse for refusing to live with the husband. I have no good reason to take a different view.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The appeal has thus no force. Accordingly, I hereby dismiss it, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1973Raj20; 1972()WLN392',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Ajaib Singh',
		'sub' => 'Family;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '750812'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 9, the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 10, the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 9

PERSON: Kan Singh, Ganganagar, P. S. Tehsil Raisinghnagar, D. W. 1, W. 3 Bidar Singh, D. W. 1 Smt, Panchas, Pri, Singh D. W. 2, Didar Singh D, Dolat Singh, Didar Singh D. W. 3, Dolat Singh, Dolat Singh, Tej Singh

NORP: J.1, D.

CARDINAL: 31, 5, two, 2, 3., 2, only two, two, only two, two, 3, 1, one, 2, 187, 643, 2

ORG: Sikh, AIR, Smt, AIR 1969 Punjab, Mulla

DATE: 1-7-1964, 28-12-1965, the first week of February, 1966, between November., 1963, January, 1964, January, 1964, one year, between July, 1965 and, November, 1959, about a year, the whole day, almost 8 months, 5 or 6 months, 5 or 6 months, the whole day, 6 months, 5 or 6 months, the last 9 or 10 months, 1962, Section 10(8, 1953

ORDINAL: first, first, second, second, second

GPE: Satya, Singh, Satya, England