Mrs. Urmila M. Ram vs Patras Masih

Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 11-12-90 has made reference under S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for confirmation of decree of dissolution of marriage between the parties, on the petition under S. 10 of the Act moved by the wife. According to the averments in the petition, after the solemnisation of the marriage between the parties, according to Christian rites, the respondent-husband started mal-treating the petitioner and also gave her beating quite often for bringing insufficient dowry. She was insulted on various occasions in presence of her relations and others and on 10-7-1989 her husband insulted her father. The respondent also sold her jewellery and all along acted with cruelty towards her. She reported the matter to the police about his misconduct after she was compelled to shift to the Nurses Hostel in P. G. I. Divorce was secondly sought on the ground that her husband was living in adultery and had extra marital relations with other women.

The respondent-husband in his written statement admitted the factum of the marriage with the petitioner. However, according to the husband their marriage was solemnised on 26-1-1982. He specifically denied the aforesaid allegations concerning cruelty and adultery and pleaded that their marriage was simple affair as both of them were Government employees. He further pleaded that his wife threatened to divorce him after his dismissal from service in 1989 and at the instance of her mother, implicated him in a false case. According to the husband his wife had deserted him. He made all efforts to bring her back and filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights which he withdrew on the asking of his wife but later on she refused to come and live with him.

The learned Additional District Judge, framed specific issues concerning the allegations of cruelty and adultery. Issue No. 1 releting to cruelty was decided in favour of the petitioner-wife and against the husband whereas issue No. 2 concerning adultery was decided against the wife and in favour of the husband. As a result of the said finding the learned Additional District Judge passed a decree for dissolution of marriage between the parties subject to confirmation by the High Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife was heard. None appeared on behalf of the respondent-husband. We have perused the record and after careful appraisal of the evidence on the record, we are of the considered view that the learned Additional District Judge, has rightly decided issue pertaining to cruelty against the respondent-husband and in favour of the petitioner-wife. In her statements the wife had given details of acts of cruelty after 3 or 4 months of their marriage. Her husband used to take liquor and give her beating quite often for not bringing sufficient dowry. The respondent-husband also humiliated the petitioner-wife and her other relations including her father and brother. From the evidence of the wife, it is quite evident that all along the husband acted with cruelty towards the wife and her relations and mal-treated her. No evidence in rebuttal has been led by the husband who gave written application through his counsel Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate, before the Additional District Judge to the effect that he does not want to lead any evidence and has no object if divorce is granted. As the petitioner-wife had not specifically named the women with whom her husband allegedly had developed illicit relations, the learned Additional District Judge, had rightly decided issue concerning adultery against the wife and in favour of the husband.

For the foregoing reasons, the learned Additional Distt. Judge, Chandigarh has rightly passed the decree for dissolution of marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty and the same is accordingly confirmed.

Order accordingly.