Shri Ashwani Kumar Sehgal vs Smt. Swatantar Sehgal

K.S. Tiwana, J.—This appeal arises out of the dismissal of the application of the appellant u/s 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree of divorce by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.

The case of the petitioner is that he was married to the respondent on October 10, 1973, according to the Hindu rites. After the marriage, the respondent started persuading him to live separately from his family, as she did not want to live in the joint family. She used to dislike the food prepared by his sister and also started using indecent language towards the other members of the family. She on many occasions refused to take food on the pretext that she may not be poisoned. She used to pick up quarrel on trivial matters and abuse him and his mother. She even ignored him and her attitude disturbed the peace of the family. The behaviour of the respondent greatly affected his mental and physical health. All the efforts of the appellant to persuade the respondent to see to reason and not to insist in her attitude failed and ultimately on November 23, 1975, at about 2 P.M. she left his home on the pretext to see her ailing mother. The respondent never came back after that. The appellant made several trips to the house of the parents of the respondent and requested her to come back and live with him in his house, but she refused. She insisted that the appellant should deposit Rs. 10,000/- in her name and also arrange for a separate residence for themselves away from his family The respondent also made certain frivolous complaints to the authorities and the Police, and also filed an application claiming maintenance u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

The respondent in the written statement denied the allegations of the petitioner and stated that soon after the marriage the appellant and his family members started criticising her for not bringing the dowry to their satisfaction. They started to put pressure on her to bring more money as dowry from her parents. Since she could not satisfy their demands, they started to behave in a humiliating way towards her. She also alleged physical torture at the hands of the appellant, who wanted her to bring Rs. 14,000/- so that he could construct upon the plot allotted in his name. The contentions of the appellant as contained in the petition were denied. She alleged that efforts were made by her and her parents to prevail upon the appellant to keep her in his house as his wife.

The case between the parties was tried by the learned trial Judge on the following issues:--

Whether after the solemnisation of the marriage the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty ? O.P.P.

Relief.

After the trial, the learned Additional District Judge did not agree with the allegations made and the evidence adduced to support, those by the appellant and dismissed the petition with costs Feeling dissatisfied with the order of dismissal, the appellant has come upto this Court in appeal

The case of the parties to support their respective version rests on the oral evidence. It was the appellant, who came to the Court to get a divorce decree on the ground of cruelty on the part of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that after the amendment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the concept of cruelty in Hindu Marriage cases has undergone a change and that strict standard of cruelty which was insisted upon by the Courts under the old Act is no longer required. I agree with Mr. Puran Chand, the learned counsel for the appellant to the extent that the concept of cruelty has been simplified by the recent amendment but it does not mean that as soon as an allegation of cruelty, which is contested by the other side, is made the prayer for dissolution of marriage or divorce has to be accepted. Cruelty in such cases has to be of the type, which should satisfy the conscience of the Court to believe that the relations between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of one of the spouses that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress. Though the word has not been defined in the act but in such cases, it atleast, should be of a type, from which a reasonable and prudent man would be satisfied that the atmosphere in the house of the parties are so surcharged that it is not conducive for the mental or physical health of any of the spouses to live together. For this the picture of domestic life of the spouses must be surveyed as a whole before any judgment can be formed to justify the prayer made for divorce. The legal conception of cruelty comprises of two distinct elements that is the ill treatment complained of and resultant danger or apprehension flowing from it. The evidence in such cases has to be assessed in the light of this.

The evidence produced by the appellant in this case about cruelty consists of the oral evidence of himself and his father. Both of them have alleged that the conduct of the respondent was unbecoming of a family member living in a joint family. The appellant state that soon after the marriage the respondent started persuading him to live separately from the family suggesting that they can manage to live comfortably with the pay, which he was drawing. When he did not accede to this proposal, then the respondent started picking up quarrels on trifles to the inconvenience of the family. But these trifles have not been described by him. He only mentioned that there used to be pin pricking with his mother or sister. The appellant has failed to describe the conduct of the respondent during this period to satisfy the two elements of cruelty referred above and justify the appellant''s taking a drastic step for asking for a divorce decree so soon alter their marriage. After going through the evidence of the witnesses examined in the Court and hearing the learned counsel, I am not impressed by the evidence and also do not find cogent or sufficient ground to hold that there was any cruelty on the part of the respondent so as to justify the acceptance of his prayer.

The statement of the appellant that the respondent left his house suddenly on November 23, 1975, on the pretext of her mother''s illness failed to impress the learned trial Judge. It has failed to create any impression in my mind also. The illness of a mo her-in-law to the newely weds is usually a matter of some concern. If the respondent had left so suddenly on that pretext, the appellant was expected subsequently to call on his mother-in-law on the same evening or on the following day to enquire about her health. When enquired about this, he admitted that he did not do so, but went there on the third day. His conduct exposes the weakness of the ground, which has been projected by him. It seems to me that it has been contrived only as a ground to justify the petition.

On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that soon after the marriage she was continuously nagged by her in laws and the husband for the meagreness dowry. When she could not satisfy their demands, she was maltreated by the appellant. Apparently from the circumstances this seems to be made out. It is difficult to imagine that a newly married girl within such a short time of marriage would acquire such a quarrelsome stance towards her husband or his parents without any serious reason. The cause for the difference between the parties appears to be on the question of dowry, which as it is common becomes a matter of controversy soon after the marriage. The possibility, therefore, cannot be ruled out that it was the appellant and his family members, who tried to be quarrelsome on the ground of insufficiency of the dowry. The appellant orally stated that the plot was allotted to him after the respondent had left the house on November 23, 1975. His oral assertion on that point is not sufficient which could best be proved from better evidence that is by the production of the record regarding the allotment of the plot.

From the circumstances of the case, the appellant has failed to prove that because of the temperamental behaviour of the respondent and his inability to meet her demand for a separate residence, the atmosphere was so created by her that he could not live comfortably with her as his spouse and that it would be injurious or harmful for him to live with the respondent.

As the appellant has failed to make out a case or to prove the circumstances alleged by him, the appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 100/-.