Satya Devi vs Gian

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—Petitioner-appellant wife has filed this appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29th July, 1987, whereby her petition filed u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ''the Act'') has been dismissed.

Uncontroverted facts of the case are that the appellant and the respondent were married with each other on 27th April, 1983 at Nakodar according to Hindu raites. The parties lived together as husband and wife at Village Tajpur, District Jalandhar. No child was born from this wed-lock.

According to the appellant-petitioner on the very first nuptial night her husband taunted her that she is not beautiful and has brought inadequate dowry with her. He and members of his family insisted that she should bring more dowry articles like Refrigerator, Colour T.V. and a cash amount of Rs. 5,000/-. On this count, they tortured her physically and mentally. She was beaten mercilessly and was turned out from the matrimonial home on 26th May, 1983. Thereafter, she lived in her parental home for two months. On the entreating of her father, she was rehabilitated by the husband. Again on 1.8.1983, he asked her to bring Rs. 10,000/- from her father to be invested in his business. She went to her parental home and demanded that amount but her father was unable to satisfy this demand hence she came back. Her husband slapped her on her negative reply. She tolerated his cruel treatment, but ultimately on 15.8.1983 again she was beaten and was turned out of the nuptial home in her wearing apparel. She was forced to bring money from her parents. Husband also directed her not to come back to his house without getting money from her parents. In June, 1983 and September, 1983, her father took out panchayats. He and his parents were persuaded to rehabilitate her but they declined. Thus on these counts, she has prayed for a decree of divorce.

The respondent-husband denied that allegations of cruelty and desertion. According to him, he never demanded any dowry articles nor taunted that she is not beautiful, neither beat her on any occasion no turned her out from his house. It is also denied that he demanded Rs. 10,000/- for in vestment in his business. He always treated her with love and affection. In October, 1983 her mother came to him and demanded Rs. 6,000/- for sending her son abroad. In November, 1983, his father gave few gold ornaments to be given to her mother so that she can arrange money for sending her son abroad. He gave those articles to her mother. In June, 1984, when he went alongwith the appellant to her parental home and demanded those jewellery items, her parents flatly refused to return those items and turned him out. Since then the appellant is residing in her parental home. In August, 1984, his father took Panchayat to appellant''s house but the appellant and her parents declined to sent her back.

Parties adduced evidence in support of their pleadings. The Trial Court held that the appellant-petitioner''s evidence is neither cogent nor reliable. She has failed to prove both the grounds of divorce. Hence, the petition was dismissed.

The appellant''s learned Counsel vehemently argued that appellant has proved that from the very first night after her marriage she was being tortured for bringing inadequate dowry. She was stated that on 26.5.1983, she was given beatings by her husband and was turned out from his house. On this point, she is corroborated by Tari, P.W. 4, who is respondent''s neighbour. She has also stated that, thereafter, for two months she lived with her father. Her father went to him and made request to rehabilitate her. He accepted to rehabilitate her. She went to her matrimonial home and started living with him. On 1.8.1983 he asked her to bring Rs. 10,000/- from her father to be invested in his business. She again went to her parental home and asked her father to give Rs. 10,000/- but as he was unable to pay this huge amount, she came back. On hearing, her reply in the negative he slapped her. Again, he started torturing her. On 15.8.1983 again she was beaten and was turned out from his house. P.W. 4 Tari has corroborated her on his point also. She has also proved that thereafter twice her father convened Panchayats but the respondent declined to accept her. She is corroborated by Jit Ram this father) and Sukhvinder Singh P.W. 3, who were members of these Panchayats. She vehemently commented that the Trial Court has wrongly disbelieved her evidence on the count that she has not stated that the respondent caused injuries to her with a ''Rambi'' though her witness Tari, P.W. 4 has stated so. She has deposed to that effect in her examination-in-chief. The respondent has failed to rebut her evidence.

The respondent''s Counsel contended that since 1983, the parties are living separately. There is no possibility of their re-union. The appellant has clearly said that she is not prepared to live with the respondent as she apprehends danger to her life. The respondent has also not made any attempt after the decree to rehabilitate her. Thus, it is evident that the marriage is totally broken down factually and emotionally.

A bare perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the appellant has proved that her husband treated her with cruelty for not bringing adequate dowry and not satisfying his demand made later on, beat he and turned her out from matrimonial home twice. Thus, she was forced by the respondent to leave the matrimonial home and to take refuge in her parental home. Therefore, the respondent is guilty of constructive desertion. He cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong by saying that since 1983 as she has not come back to him, she is guilty of desertion. He has failed to discharge his obligations of marital life. His faults and failings are more responsible for breaking the conjugal home.

The husband''s plea is that she wanted him to purchase a Colour T.V. for her. He promised to fulfil her demand in near future but she was mere exacting and on that count she left the matrimonial home. This is not pleaded in the written statement not it is put to her in the cross-examination. He has denied that he taunted her that she is not beautiful and has not brought adequate dowry, but he has failed to show any plausible cause for her leaving the matrimonial home, rather the cause pleaded and proved by her stands to reason. No Indian woman would like to leave her matrimonial home unless there is some compelling reason for her to adopt that course. The respondent has examined Parma Nand, R.W. 2; Sardara Ram, R.W. 3; Sibu Ram, R.W. 4 (who is his father) and Amar Chand, R.W, 5, to corroborate his testimony. Sardara Ram, R. W. 3 and Parma Nand, R.W. 2 have deposed that the respondent never ill-treated her. She or members of her family never complained that she is being ill-treated by the respondent. Sibu Ram, R.W. 4 and Amar Chand, R.W. 5 have stated that in October, 1983 her mother demanded Rs. 6,000/- to sent her son "abroad. Sibu Ram, gave jewellery to be given to her mother for the aforesaid purpose and thereafter when his son demanded back those jewellery items he was turned out of their house. Since then the appellant has not come back to the matrimonial home. He and Amar Chand have also stated that they took Panchayat but she declined to come. No doubt, respondent and his witnesses have denied that the appellant was ill-treated by the husband and his relations, was beaten and turned out from the matrimonial home as their demand for more dowry articles was not satisfied. They have failed to state as to why she left the matrimonial home. The reason assigned by the respondent for her leaving the matrimonial home is not believable.

Hence, I find that the Trial Court has fallen into an error in not scanning the evidence minutely. The evidence adduced by the appellant is more convincing, credible and reliable. She has proved that the husband-respondent has treated her with cruelty and has turned her out from the matrimonial home twice after beating her. Therefore, now she apprehends danger to her life and is not prepared to come back to her matrimonial home. Her apprehension cannot be said to be not well-founded. No doubt, she has not lodged any report with the police, but on that count alone, her sworn testimony cannot be disbelieved because in matrimonial matters the parties do not go to Police Station, unless the last straw is put on the camel''s back. When the situation goes beyond tolerance and adjustment, then only wife knocks the door of the Court for obtaining divorce. Divorce is not a respected mode of life. It is the last resort of any wife.

Hence, I find that the appellant has proved that she was treated with cruelty by her husband and as twice after being beaten, she was turned out from the matrimonial home since August, 1983, she is residing in her parental home. Even thereafter, the respondent has failed to rehabilitate her though, her parents made attempts twice for her rehabilitation. It appears that the parties have reached to such a stage of estrangement that their re-union has become impossible. Their marriage is broken factually and emotionally too. As their marriage is irretrievably broken, on this count also, the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby accepted. Trial Court''s judgment and decree set aside. Appellant''s prayer for divorce is granted. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.