Simarjit Kaur vs Bakshish Singh

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—This is wife''s appeal u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter in short the ''Act) against the judgment and decree dated 17.5.1990 in H.M. Case No. 51 of 1988 filed by the respondent-husband u/s 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

The parties were married at village Pandori Nizran, Tehsil and District Jalandhar about 5 years before filing Divorce Petition dated 11.8.1988. The appellant gave birth to two sons in this wedlock. After the marriage the appellant treated the respondent with utmost cruelty giving reasonable apprehension to him that it is not safe for him to live with the appellant. Soon after the marriage, she started showing her disrespect and hatred for the respondent as well as for his parents. She always humiliated and insulted them not only before their relations but even before their servants. Her behaviour was so much contemptuous towards respondent''s parents that she used to say openly that she will not live with them and she will offer prayer at their demise. She used to loiter in the village after sun set despite the fact that the respondent and his parents forbade her not to go out after the sunset. On one occasion while she was wandering aimlessly. She was molested by two persons which brought ill fame to the respondent''s family. She was in the habit of going on the roof-tops and make indecent gestures towards passers-by which also gave an opportunity to the villagers to comment that the respondent has failed to satisfy her sexually. She never did any house-hold work. Respondent''s mother was not keeping good health, but as the appellant was not helping in looking after the household chores, the respondent''s mother was compelled to do that work also. Many a times, she used to tell him contemptuously that his appearance is like that of a monkey. He should thank his stars that she has consented to marry him otherwise even a Chuhri (scheduled caste woman) would not have agreed to marry him. Thus, she made his life miserable and expressed her immense disrespect towards him. When the second son was only a month old, and their elder son was about 2 1/2 years old, she left the matrimonial home against his wishes and consent and went to her parental home with the younger son, leaving the elder one, in his house, when the child needed her love, affection and care most. Thereafter despite his various efforts to bring her back, the appellant has not rejoined him. He convened a Panchayat to bring her back, but she totally declined and insisted that he should divorce her and return her dowry articles. Thereafter on 26.6.1988 he returned the dowry articles to her and on 9.7.1988 a deed was written whereby their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent. Both the spouses and their parents signed this deed of dissolution of marriage. He has not condoned her acts of cruelty. Thus on the ground of cruelty he has prayed a decree of divorce.

The appellant-wife denied all the allegations of cruelty. She has pleaded inter alia that her husband''s parents in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given to her at the time of marriage by her father. On that count, they always maltreated her. She never went out of the house. She was never molested by anybody, nor she ever went to the roof-top or made immoral gesture towards the passers-by bringing ill fame to respondent''s family. She always behaved with respect and humility and did all the house-hold chores. The respondent-husband made totally false allegations of cruelty. After the birth of the second son, she was turned out from the matrimonial home and thereafter despite her and her parents endeavour to rehabilitate her, the respondent declined to keep her. Before turning her out the respondent obtained her signatures on some stamp paper and claimed that a divorce deed would be written. Later on in a Panchayat, the respondent forced her, her father and other persons to sign a paper of divorce on the ground that if that paper is signed by them, he would rehabilitate her otherwise not, but when that paper was signed by these persons, he flatly refused to rehabilitate her. He obtained the Divorce Deed with the object of marrying again. She has also denied that dowry articles were returned to her on 26.6.1983. According to her, the alleged divorce deed is a forged and fabricated document and is not admissible in evidence. She lived with the respondent up to June, 1988. Thus the alleged cruelties stand condoned by her husband. She also assailed the maintainability of the petition in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. Characterising the petition as frivolous and vexatious, she claimed Rs. 5,000/- as compensatory costs.

The respondent-petitioner filed replication to her written reply and denied the allegations made by her. Trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the respondent has proved the ground of cruelty and thus the decree of divorce was passed.

The appellant''s learned Counsel vehemently criticised the Trial Court judgment and contended that in para 8 of the judgment, the Trial Court has drawn inferences. He has not at all discussed the appellant''s evidence. He has held that the respondent-petitioner''s statement is duly corroborated by Shangara Singh (PW-3) who is his father and is thus bound to toe his line. The Trial Court has taken into consideration the agreement marked A and Exhibit P-l, though the appellant has alleged that these documents are fabricated ones. She never participated in any Panchayat and under a misrepresentation her signatures were obtained on these documents. She has clearly deposed that the dowry articles were not returned to her.

The appellant''s learned Counsel further argued that even the offence of cruelty is not proved by the respondent. According to the husband the appellant used to loiter in the village aimlessly after sun set and once she was molested by two villagers, but surprisingly enough those two villagers or any other villager have/has not been examined to prove the alleged incident. He has also stated that she used to go on the roof-tops and used to make immoral gesture towards passers-by which brought ill fame to his family, but even on this count, no independent evidence is examined to corroborate him and his father. The Counsel for the appellant stressed vehemently that there is no evidence on record to prove that the alleged cruel acts were such as to cause danger to his life and limb and unless that is proved, it cannot be held that the respondent has proved the offence of cruelty. Thus according to him, the Trial Court has erroneously passed the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

The respondent''s Counsel supporting the Trial Court''s judgment argued that the husband is not required to prove the offence of cruelty beyond reasonable doubt. If in day-to-day life, the wife''s behaviour is not cordial, rather it is contemptuous and insulting that by itself would amount to cruelty because that would spoil harmony of the domestic life and will disturb peace of mind, of the respondent as well as of all other members of his family. The learned Counsel for the respondent further pointed out that to prove her behaviour inside the house, the respondent is not expected to examine any outsider because no outsider could depose about such a behaviour which took place within four walls of the house. So naturally his father was examined who has corroborated him on all the material particulars of the ground of cruelty. He further pointed out that the execution of Divorce Deed Exhibit P-l is not only proved by the respondent, but independent witness Rajinder Pal (P.W. 1) has also proved due execution of this document. This witness has categorically stated that at the time of execution of this document, dowry articles were returned to the appellant. The appellant and her father signed this Deed in his presence. Though in her written reply, the appellant has admitted that under the alleged misrepresentation, she and her father were made to sign the Divorce Deed, but on oath, she has clearly denied that Ex.P-1 bears her signatures. She has gone to the extent of saying that even the written reply submitted by her was not prepared at her instruction and its contents are not known to her.

He stressed that in the written reply her stand was that she was turned out of the matrimonial home after one month of the birth of the second son, but on oath she has stated that when she left the matrimonial home she told her parents-in-laws that she will come back within a week. This statement falsifies her stand that she was turned out of the house as she left the matrimonial home at her will without the consent of the respondent and thereafter despite his efforts, she declined to come back. When the Panchayat was convened, she expressed her disinclination to join him and thus at her instance Divorce Deed was executed. He further pointed out that in her written reply, she alleged that some times she used to go to the field after sun set to attend the call of nature in the company of her mother-in-law, but on oath she has denied even this allegation. She left the elder son when he was only 2 1/2 years old. She has failed to look-after that child. She does not know in which class her elder son is studying. Even when her mother-in-law expired she did not come for non condolences. The respondent husband has proved her acts of cruel behaviour. From her own testimony the above facts stand proved. Thus according to him, the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned decree.

So far as the ground of cruelty is concerned, it is now settled that cruelty can also be mental. Insulting conduct indulged in by the wife in public against her husband would cause mental agony and pain and prove harmful and injurious to the health of husband. (N. Sreepadachar v. Vasantha Bai AIR 1970 Mys 232). Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of a spouse, it is established or an inference can legitimately and reasonable be drawn that the treatment by the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse about his mental welfare, then that conduct amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. (Smt. Kamla Devi v. Balbir Singh AIR 1979 J & K 4).

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane, that the petitioner is not required to establish the charge of cruelty beyond reasonable doubt. It is further held that the various threats given by the life and persistent abuses and insults hurled at the husband and his parents are all of so grave an order as to imperil the husband''s sense of personal safely, mental happiness, job satisfaction and reputation. In such a case the issue to be decided on the basis of probabilities of the case.

The respondent''s learned Counsel relying on Devinder Singh Talwar v. Smt. Loveleen Kaur 1982 HLR 135 and Sudhakar Vinayak Joshi v. Sou. Sulabha Sudhakar Joshi and Anr. 1986(1) HLR 500, contended that the decree of divorce can be passed also on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties to that effect. He stressed that in this case the respondent-petitioner has proved Exhibit P-1 which is a document executed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage. Hence on this count also, decree of divorce can be passed.

No doubt the parties are given a right under the Act to obtain a decree of divorce on mutual consent, but in this case the appellant-wife has denied her signatures on document Ex. P-1 though the respondent has proved that she has executed this document on her own free will. He has examined Rajinder Pal (PW-1) also to prove voluntary execution of this document by the appellant. Under Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, this document cannot he used as a compromise Deed because the alleged Deed was executed on 9.7.1988 whereas this Divorce Petition was filed on 11.8.1988. The father of the respondent has deposed that the appellant was to admit this compromise in the Court, but she declined to do so. The respondent is silent on this point. But this document can be treated as a conduct of the appellant to treat the marriage as dissolved. It also reflects her intention to end the matrimonial tie permanently. It is evident from her own statement that she left the matrimonial home on her own accord and thereafter she refused to resume co-habitation, never came back to the matrimonial home to enquire about the welfare of her minor child who was left in that home. She does not know when her mother-in-law expired and where her elder son is studying. She has failed to prove that she was turned out of the matrimonial home. No doubt she has denied the alleged acts of cruelty, but in her written reply she has admitted that on few occasions she went to the fields to attend to the call of nature in the company of her mother-in-law, though on oath, she has chosen to deny it. The respondent has proved by adducing his evidence that the appellant always insulted him and his parents. She behaved contemptuously towards him and compared his face to that of a monkey. She has no respect for him or for his parents. She always thought them to be persons of inferior status.

After going through the parties evidence, I find that the Trial Court has not committed any error in decreeing the respondent''s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. This ground is duly proved by the respondent-petitioner. Thus finding the appeal meritless, it is hereby dismissed.