Raj Pal vs Smt. Sukhbir

J.V. Gupta, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby the petition filed on behalf of the Appellant-husband u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce was dismissed.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 1973. However, the muklawa ceremony took place in the year 1978. In the year 1981, a son was born out of the wedlock. The parties separated in the year 1982. The husband filed the petition, that after the marriage, the wife resided with him at the matrimonial home for 3 or 4 days. Thereafter she was taken to the parental home as per the custom. She returned therefrom after five years. They lived amicably for about a month. Thereafter, she misbehaved with his family members. She used to leave the matrimonial home unannounced. She did not listen to his entreaties and his family members to see reason. She picked up quarrel with him and his family members even on flimsy pretexts. Whenever she was asked to attend the household chores, she would hurl abuses and she would not even spare his mother and sister-in-law. It was also pleaded that her eldest sister was married to his brother. They also tried to persuade her to desist from these activities, but she did not agree. Even after the male child was born in the year 1981, she did not improve her behaviour. She on her own, left for the agricultural farm of the joint family at Mohna and stayed there with her sister who is married to his brother. According to his husband, the wife had treated him with cruelty and had withdrawn from has matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. In the written statement, the wife denied the said allegations in toto and alleged that it was the Husband who had treated her with cruelty and had turned her out of the matrimonial home along with her minor child as he was inclined to carry on with a Sikh girl. It was alleged that he husband was inclined to enter into marriage with another girl and the wife had to restrain that marriage by filing a civil suit in the civil Court According to the wife, the boot was on the other leg inasmuch as it was the husband who, along with the members of his family, had made her life hell as they were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the Respondent deserted the Petitioner without

reasonable cause, as alleged in the petition ?

Whether the Respondent treated the Petitioner with cruelty as alleged in the petition ?

Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ?

Relief.

After discussing the entire evidence, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the husband had not been able to prove that the wife had left the matrimonial home of her own; rather the husband and his people used to maltreat the wife as they were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her. It was further held that there was no adequate material on the file to prove the allegations that the husband was carrying on with any girl even at the time of his marriage with the Respondent. However, in view of the earlier finding, the learned Additional District Judge, also observed that the husband was trying to take advantage of his own wrong, which he could not be allowed in view of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, the divorce petition was dismissed

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the evidence on the record has not been properly appreciated. The allegations made in the written statement that the husband was carrying on with some other girl itself proved cruelty on the part of the wife and on that ground alone, he was entitled to the decree of divorce. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Shanti Devi v. Raghav Parkash A.I.R 1986 Raj 13; Rajkishore Prasad Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Devi and Others, ; Nemai Kumar Ghosh Vs. Sm. Mita Ghosh, and O.P. Mehta Vs. Saroj Mehta, It was also argued that the allegations made in the written statement were never put to the Appellant in his cross examination and, therefore, the finding arrived at was vitiated

During the trial, the wife stated that she was willing to go to live with her husband even at that stage, whereas the husband while appearing as P. W. 1 categorically stated,-

I am presently not inclined to maintain the Respondent as a wife.

Even in this Court, the husband was not prepared to reconcile with the wife in any manner.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this appeal

There is absolutely no cogent explanation on the part of the husband as to why he did not want to live with the wife, whereas the wife has categorically stated that the husband was not satisfied with the dowry brought by her and on that account, she was being maiterated. Of course, she stated in her written statement as well as in her statement in the Court that the husband was carrying on with some other girl and that at one stage she had to file a civil suit restraining him from marrying her because of the existing marriage. However, these allegations, by themselves, do not amount to cruelty. Even in the replication filed by the husband, he simply denied the allegations made in the written statement, and he never pleaded that the allegations were false and that they had caused him mental agony. In these circumstances, the said allegations will not entitle the husband to claim divorce on the basis of the alleged mental cruelty. The rulings relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant have no applicability to the facts of the present case.

According to the allegations made by the husband, the wife only lived for four or five days after the marriage and returned to. the matrimonial home after five years, whereas the fact is that according to the custom the gauna/muklawa ceremony took place in the year 1978. It was only after that, she remained with the husband and gave birth to male child in 1981. She parted company in the year 1982, when she was malterated. In these circumstances the question of desertion on the part of the wife did not arise.

The allegations made by the husband in the petition were that the wife used to steal goods from the matrimonial home, but the said allegations were never proved by him by any cogent evidence. Even no question was put to her when she was in the witness-box, in this behalf. It is, therefore, evident that false allegations were made against her to get rid of her. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings of the trial Court.

Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.