Janki Dass vs Smt. Shanti

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—On 4-2-1985, the husband filed a petition for divorce with the pleas that the parties were married about 18/20 years back and out of the wedlock three children namely, Krishan Kumar 15 years old, Pawan Kumar 6 1/2 years old and Santosh 3 1/2 years old were born. The wife was ill-tempered and quarrelsome from the very begining and could not mix herself in the family. He tolerated her cruel attitude somehow and pulled on his family life in spite of her intolerable behaviour. She very often used to leave the house and every time he specified her and brought her back. It is alleged that in November, 1983 she gave merciless beating to his mother and fled away with valueables, precious items and jewellery and despite his best efforts did not return. He had to file a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights which was compromised on 6-9-1984 in which she confessed her guilt and misdeeds and he kept her after forgiving her cruel acts.

The husband then pleaded that his wife wanted to kill him and made attempts to murder. It is then pleaded that again on 25-5-1985, in order to kill him she mixed poison in his milk and tried to serve the same to him and when his mother came to know of if, his life was saved and ultimately she fled away from the house on 27-1-1985. On these pleas divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty.

The wife contested the petition and denied the allegations levelled against her specifically on all counts and gave the following cause for levelling false allegations against her:

In fact at the time of marriage the petitioner was poor man. Due to grace of God now his business of cloth has flourished and he is having handsome earning. So he has started disliking respondent and wants to remarry.

In replication, the husband gave the following reply to the aforesaid pleas of the wife:-

The petitioner continues to be having moderate income from marriage till now. There is no question of the petitioner remarrying again as he has burnt his fingers by marrying once and as he is having three children as stated earlier. The petitioner belonging to a lower middle class family, cannot think of remarriage.

On the contest of the parties, following issues were framed:-

Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with such cruelty so as to entitle him to the dissolution of marriage?

Relief.

Keeping in view the evidence brought on the record, the trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated 2-9-1986 dismissed the divorce petition after recording a finding that it was not proved if the wife was guilty of cruelty on the basis of facts pleaded against her. This is husband''s appeal.

After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record. I am of the view there is not the least scope for interference with the judgment and decree of the Court below.

In February 1985, the husband had pleaded that the parties were married 18/20 years ago, that means near about 1965. The eldest son of the parties is about to become major. The husband in replication has stated twice that he is not prepared to remarry. The husband''s own case is that from the very start the wife is of a cruel nature and he forgave her acts of cruelty till 6-9-1984 when the matter was compromised in the petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, he has condoned all her acts till September 1984 and for those acts he cannot seek divorce.

However, if there is a renewal, he can certainly claim divorce. It has to be seen was there any renewal of those acts and what are those acts. The only allegation now put forward is that she mixed poison in his milk to kill him, and he was saved by his mother as she came to know about it. In this behalf no reliable evidence has been produced. The self serving statements of the husband and his mother are not sufficient to hold that if the wife ever tried to poison the husband.

Learned counsel for the husband relied mainly on the statement of the eldest son of the parties namely Krishan Kumar, who had appeared as a witness. On a reading of his statement as P.W. 7. I find that all he has stated is that his mother has been throughout quarreling with him. His father and grand mother and used abusive language and wanted his grand mother to be turned out. He has not said a word if his mother ever tried to poison his father. The quarreling and abusive act of the wife, if any has already been condoned by the husband.

During reconciliation, the impression left in my mind was that the wife was right in her plea that she is not liked in the house because she is not good looking and well mannered woman and now the husband has become better off and he wants to have a better looking wife. The wife looked like an illiterate village woman and of quite ordinary looks where as the husband looked rather affluent. Although husband has stated in the replication that he does not want to remarry but his real intention seems to be to get married again after obtaining a decree of divorce and in order to achieve this object he has cooked a false story that wife wanted to poison him by giving him milk mixed with poison.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed with costs.