Raj Pal vs Sukhbiri

M.L. Singhal, J.—This is a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Paten t against the Judgment dated 13.10.1987 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in F.A.O. No. 62-M of 1987, dismissing the appellant''s appeal and his petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce with Smt. Sukhbiri. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:

Raj Pal (appellant) was married to Smt. Sukhbiri in the year 1973. According to Raj Pal, she wife cohabited with him at the matrimonial home for 3/4 days after marriage and thereafter she was taken to the parental home as is customary for newly wedded brides. She came to the matrimonial home after five years. For about a month she behaved lovingly and affectionately towards him and the members of his family thereafter he became disposed towards them insolently. According to Raj Pal, she used to do so at the instigation of her parents who wanted her to bring money and house-hold articles from the matrimonial home for them. She used to leave the matrimonial home without his permission. She picked up quarrels with them without any reason and when she was requested to be loving and affectionate towards them, she did not see to reason. She did not perform the household chores. When she was asked to perform household chores, she hurled abuse on them. She did not spare even her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Her elder sister is married to his brother. Their advise to her did not have any effect on her. In the year 1981, she gave birth to a son. The birth of a son to her did not bring about any improvement in her behaviour towards them. She without his permission left for the agricultural farm of the joint family at Mohna and stayed there with her said sister. She withdrew from the conjugal home without any reasonable cause or excuse. She thus treated him with cruelty.

In her written statement, the wife denied having withdrawn from the matrimonial home. She denied having refused to perform the household chores. She was always lovingly and affectionately disposed towards her husband and the members of his family. She never misbehaved with them. Rather the boot is on the other leg. The husband treated her with cruelty. He turned her out of the matrimonial home together with the child as he had fascination for some Sikh girl whom he was feeling inclined to marry. She had to file a suit for permanent injunction in the Civil Court for stalling his marriage with her. It was further pleaded that the husband and his family were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her and made her life miserable in the matrimonial home.

At the conclusion of the trial of this petition, learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad declined the relief to tine husband. The husband''s appeal to the learned Single Judge met the same fate. The husband did not relent and knocked the door of this Court through this letters patent appeal.

The wife was married in the year 1973. 3/4 days after the marriage she was taken to the parental home as a customary for newly married brides. She returned to the matrimonial home after 5 years i.e. in the wake of Muklawa Ceremony. When she was married she was a child. After she had attained puberty she returned to the matrimonial home for providing conjugal society to the husband. The wife was willing to settle in the matrimonial home. During the trial she stated that she was willing to go to the matrimonial home. The husband on the other hand stated that he was not inclined to maintain her as wife. The husband did not show any inclination to take the wife to the matrimonial home and settle her with him. The husband did not disclose any reason why he was not willing to settle the wife in the matrimonial home. The wife on the other hand stated that the husband was not satisfied with the dowry brought by her and therefore, she was being maltreated in the matrimonial home. The husband stated that the wife had unduly accused him of inclination towards a Sikh girl. She had unduly imputed lack of faithfulness to the marital bed. The undue imputation of unfaithfulness to him by the wife is an act of mental cruelty to him. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the institution of the suit by the wife for injunction alleging that he was trying to marry a Sikh girl was also an act of cruelty. Suffice it to say, she did not impute adultery. Imputation of adultery unjustifiably by one spouse to another constitutes cruelty. The wife felt that the husband was feeling inclination towards that girl. He might marry her. On this assumption she filed a suit for injunction against him stalling his apprehended marriage with her. In our opinion the institution of that suit cannot be dubbed as an act of cruelty. The husband filed replication to this allegation made by the wife in her written statement. In the replication, however, the husband only refuted this allegation but without pleading that this allegation has caused him mental cruelty. Even otherwise when the husband had filed a petition for divorce against the wife and he was at war with her, the wife could not be expected to lag behind and not make some or other insinuation against the husband in addition to refuting his allegations against her.

The wife gave birth to a son in the year 1981 at her parental home. The husband did not visit the wife and the child. It was stated by the husband that he did not visit the wife and the child because there was a strain in their relations and on account of their relations being strained he did not visit the wife and the child. The husband has not made any allegation against the wife which could be dubbed as cruelty resulting into dissolution of the sacred bond of marriage. The wife stayed with the husband for about 3 years and thereafter left for her parental home for delivery.

In the beginning of marriage, the husband and the wife has to adjust with each other. The wife has to adjust with the members of the family of the husband and they have to adjust with her. Lack of adjustment on the part of the wife or on the part of the husband and the members of his family cannot be dubbed as something which could knock the very foundation of marriage and shatter it.

There is no evidence that the wife ever imputed adultery to the husband prior to the institution of this petition for divorce by the husband.

In the first instance, the wife went to her sister and brother-in-law at village Molina. She must have gone there to seek their intervention, or she went there in the hope that her husband will come there and take her to the matrimonial home. The wife must have left the matrimonial home and gone to her sister and brother-in-law at their agricultural farm at Mohna, on account of something which might have happened in the matrimonial home.

Marriage among the Hindus is a serious affair. It is an institution devised by the society after much thought. Degree of mental cruelty must be such that the spouse seeking the relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. Lack of adjustment in the beginning punctuates almost every marriage. Lack of adjustment cannot be allowed to wreck a marriage, which is founded on mutual trust, faith and sacrifice.

For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge justifiably declined to allow the relief of divorce to the husband against his wife. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Since there is no appearance for the respondent, there will be no order as to costs.

G.S. Singhvi, J.

I agree.