Gurdip Kaur vs Balbir Singh

A.L. Bahri, J.—Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, the wife, has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar dated February 14, 1989 dissolving the marriage of the parties u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the petition filed by Balbir Singh, the husband.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on October 12, 1983 at Jalandhar city. They lived together for about 3-1/2 years. During this period Gurdeep Kaur conceived a child, however, delivered a dead child. At the time of the marriage the husband was living in house No. B-14/908-A, Arjan Nagar, Jalandhar City along with his parents and other members of the joint family. Though the wife was loved and respected by members of the family, however, after about a month of the marriage the wife started asking the husband to have an other house to live separately from his parents. The husband having failed to persuade his wife to live jointly, ultimately arranged for a separate house. She all along insisted that if she would not be taken to a separate house, she would commit suicide. Even after shifting to the new house, she gave such threats of committing suicide. Earlier also she declined to take food prepared by the mother of the husband suspecting mixture of poison and gave a similar threat to commit suicide. As and when some relations visited the house, the wife refused to wish them and on one of the occasions she hurled shoe towards the petitioner. She had no interest in the house. She declined to do house-hold work stating that she was not the domestic servant. On June 2, 1984 she left the house to stay with her parents. She stayed there till July 13, 1985. Even thereafter her attitude towards the husband did not improve. In May, 1987 a separate house was arranged by the husband. All the allegations made in the petition were denied by the wife who inter alia alleged that the husband and his parents continued demanding articles of dowry such as scooter and her salary. In the marriage dowry articles worth Rs. 1,00,000/- were given by her parents. Since such demands were not fulfilled she was ill-treated and tortured and on June 5, 1984, she was given beating and turned out of the house. The husband and his mother visited their house on June 8, 1984 and created a scene in the street to defame her and her parents. She suffered shock on this illtreatment and gave birth to a pre-mature baby on June 13, 1984 who was already dead. The husband and his relations did not visit the hospital on the birth of the child. Panchayats were arranged but to no effect. Her brother had settled abroad and on that account the husband and her in-laws demanded scooter and V.C. R. These demands were not met. She was so much harassed that once she was compelled to commit suicide. In the replication the husband reiterated the stand while denying the allegations of the wife. The trial proceeded on the following issues : --

(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce ? OPA.

(2) Relief.

Both parties led oral evidence. Balbir Singh husband appeared as PW 1. His father Sadhu Singh PW 2 and Hans Raj PW 3 were produced by him. On the other hand Gurdeep Kaur appeared as RW 1. Mohan Singh RW 2 and Banta Singh RW 3 were produced by her.

The Additional District Judge on perusal of the evidence produced found the story put forth by the husband as correct and held that the husband was treated with cruelty by the wife and in the facts and circumstances of the case the cruelty was such that the husband could not live with the wife without endangering his life and thus the husband was entitled to dissolution of marriage and the decree was passed.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence produced in the case. During arguments on behalf of the husband, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been filed taking into consideration copy of the criminal complaint filed by the wife against the husband and his parents and brother under Sections 406, 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar in November, 1987. However, the fact of filing such a complaint was kept concealed during the pendency of the proceedings u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, otherwise no new facts are mentioned in the complaint which are not included in the written statement filed by the wife in this case.

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner-wife that even now she is willing to live with the respondent-husband and that offer should be taken into consideration while deciding the petition. On the other hand, it has been argued that this offer is not at all made bona fide. In fact, it is the wife who had set the ball rolling by leaving the house and filing a complaint under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code which fact was concealed all through the proceedings. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this offer made in this stage is not at all bonafide and it has been made to circumvent the effect of the decree passed against her. If the intention of the wife from the very beginning was to keep the matrimonial relationship alive, she would have put forth this offer at the initial stage of the case and not to prosecute the husband and his relations for the offences under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. She all along waited for culminating of the proceedings in the present case and finding that the verdict had gone against her, she has come forward with this offer.

Cruelty can be physical as well as mental. It is not necessary that in all cases there should be physical cruelty. As in the case of the wile who is subjected to continuous taunts and nagging on account of non-bringing of the dowry articles, it would amount to cruelty as such consistent behaviour would put her in danger of her health and life to continue living with the other spouse. On the same ground, if the wife with her behaviour and conduct goes on continuously giving threats of committing suicide and thus involving the husband and his relations for the same, it would be putting the husband and his relations in fear of being involved in false cases which would amount to cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage. Some of the judicial decisions have been referred to during arguments by both the counsel. I may briefly refer to the same before dealing with the evidence produced in the present case. J.L. Nanda v. Smt. Veena Nanda : AIR 1988 SC 407, was a case where husband and wife were of mature age and had a grown-up son. However, the difference between them started at the early period of their marriage. There was, however, no serious incident or problem deserving consideration. The temperament of the spouses was not conducive to each other resulting in petty quarrels. It was held that on such grounds, divorce would not be granted. In Om Parkash v. Smt. Rajni AIR 1988 Delhi 107, the demand for separate residence per se was not considered to amount to cruelty to claim divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. Smt. Savita Chadha v. Ravinder Singh Chadha 1988 (II) M L J 125, was a case of claim of divorce by the husband against the wife on the ground of cruelty. As and when the wife was asked to behave like a good wife, she used to threat that she would commit suicide and the blame would come to them. On that account, it was held that the cruelty was of such a kind to make the complaining spouses continued association with the other unsave for mental and physical health In Kiran Mandal v. Smt. Mohini Mandal (1989 ) PLR 553, interpretation to cruelty as defined u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was expounded as under :--

"Cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not confined to physical violence but includes mental torture caused by one spouse to the other. The wife had made it insufferable for the husband to live with her. Any man with reasonable self respect and power of endurance will find it difficult to live with a taunting wife, when such taunts are in fact insult and indignities. Human nature being what it is, a reasonable man''s reaction to the conduct of the offending spouse is the test and unending accusations and imputations can cause more pain and misery than physical beating."

Adverting to the evidence produced in this case, as already stated above, three witnesses were produced by the husband and three by the respondent. PW 1 Balbir Singh supported his case as given in his petition filed u/s 13 of the Act. Broadly he deposed about the conduct of the wife during the period she stayed with him. It was after one month of the marriage that she asked for living in a separate house. After two months of the marriage she again insisted in spite of persuation of her husband and parents. She called them as cads depending upon her salary and gave out the threat to commit suicide if she will not be allowed separate living. She also refused to take food prepared by her mother-in-law suspecting that something might have been mixed therein. When she was asked to do some household work she denied to do so claiming herself to be a teacher and again levelled the threat of suicide to entangle her husband and his relations. Thereafter there was a break in the joint living of the parties from June 2, 1984 to July 13, 1985. She went to her parents'' house and she delivered a dead child on June, 13, 1984. For about 13 months she lived in her parents'' house and on July 13, 1985 she again came to the matrimonial house of her husband. After about one month she again insisted for separate house. Ultimately in May, 1987, a separate house was taken where both husband and wife shifted and stayed for about 4-1/2 months. During this period also the wife insisted that her husband should cut off all his relations and ties with his parents otherwise she again threatened to commit suicide. On one of the occasions brother of the husband visited their house and on that occasion after some altercation she hurled a chappal on her husband. It was on October, 3 1987 she left that house also. During cross-examination of PW 1 Balbir Singh, a suggestion was given that she was turned out of the house by giving beating and on that account a dead child was delivered. Another suggestion was given that her entire salary used to be grabbed by her husband except a sum of Rs. 40/- left for her pocket expenses. It may be noticed that there was no specific denial of the husband''s story of giving threats to commit suicide. The only cross-examination conducted on this subject was that no report was lodged with the police in this respect. PW 2 Sadhu Singh father of Balbir Singh PW supported the version of Balbir Singh as briefly described above. The evidence of PW 3 Hans Raj is not that material in this case as he deposed about the relations of the parties as told by Balbir Singh. On the other hand Gurdip Kaur appeared as RW 1 and stated her story of the case that eversince her marriage, her inlaws were after her salary and on different occasions demanded dowry articles like T.V. or V.C.R. She was given beating on June 5, 1984 and left at her parents'' house. At that time she was pregnant. On June 8, 1984, Balbir Singh and his mother came to their house and hurled abuses. She denied that she never asked for separate house for living. During cross-examination she admitted that all along she deposited her salary in the Bank-account for certain period. She stated that after deposit of the salary the pass-book was given to her father-in-law and thereafter she opened a new account arid deposited her salary there. She also stated that the treatment meted out to her was such that once she admitted to commit suicide. RW 2 Mohan Singh and RW 3 Banta Singh, neighbours, supported her case.

Witnesses may tell lies. However, their evidence is to be analysed keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. After considering the evidence produced in the case I am satisfied that the trial Court rightly accepted the evidence of the husband. Though both the parties are teachers, there appeared to be lack of trust between them. From the very beginning of their married life, the wife wanted to live separately from the family members of the husband. She became arrogant that she started giving threats of committing suicide. Upto the first span of their married life they continued living in the house of the father of the husband. But thereafter the pressure was such that the husband had to arrange for a separate house and admittedly both the parties lived for about 4-1/2 months Even during this period there was no change in the attitude of the wife. She wanted complete severance of her husband from his other relations and again she pressed into service the same old theory of committing suicide if the husband would not accede to her request. Although she again got pregnant, she left the house not to return back and subsequently there was abortion, She had filed a criminal complaint against her husband and her father-in-law and others under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. She kept this fact concealed during the period the present proceedings remained pending. The husband did not take any chance and promptly after she left the house filed the present petition for divorce in October 1987 which was ultimately decided by the Additional District Judge on February 14, 1989. This shows that Gurdip Kaur, when left the house, had no intentions to come back. The story putforth by her that it was on account of giving beating by her in-laws that there was birth of a dead child, does not find any corroboration from the medical evidence. The child was born alter about 10 days of her leaving the house. Levelling such allegations also would amount to cruelty. Furthermore, her story that her in-laws were after her salary is also falsified by her own statement that throughout she had been depositing her salary in her own account in the Bank. Her statement that her entire salary used to be grabbed by her husband except a sum of Rs. 40/- left for her pocket expenses is again belied by her own evidence. When consistently the wife had been threatening to commit suicide and to entangle her husband and his relations for the same, it amounted to creation of such circumstances where it was impossible for the husband to live with her without endangering his health or life. The story putforth by Gurdip Kaur that she was being maltreated by her husband and her in-laws for not bringing article of the dowry, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be accepted. The trial Court rightly held that the ground of cruelty was established.

Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. The judgment and decree of the trial Court, dissolving the marriage of the parties, are affirmed.