Sunil Kumar vs Anu Kumari

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Husbandappellant has preferred this appeal against the divorce decree granted in favour of Anu Kumari respondent vide judgment dated February 10, 1995.

Uncontroverted facts are that the appellant and the respondent were married on July 25, 1992, at Nabha. No child was born in this wedlock. Since June 13, 1993, the parties are living separately.

Petitionerrespondent''s contention in the lower Court was that at the time of her marriage sufficient dowry was given, but after few days of the marriage the appellant and his mother started teasing her for not bringing sufficient dowry. They demanded a scooter and Rs. 50,000/ in cash, so that the appellant may start his business. When her father could not satisfy their demand, they compelled her to leave the matrimonial home. On September 28, 1992, she went to her parental home and came back on February 20, 1993 as the appellant went to her parental home, apologised and promised not to repeat the demand of dowry and not to behave with her cruelly. But there was no change in the behaviour of her husband and motherinlaw. On April 20, 1993, some poison was administered to her and finally on June 13, 1993, she was beaten and was turned out of the matrimonial home by her husband and mother inlaw. She was treated cruelly by them. She apprehended danger to her life. Hence she filed divorce petition on the ground of cruelty.

The appellant filed written statement and denied the allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty. According to him, after some time of the marriage petitionerrespondent herself started behaving in a very rude, cold and cruel manner against him and his mother. On trifles of life, she created problems in the family. She was addicted to medicines. She took some medicine on April 20, 1993. The tablet reacted. It is denied that they administered poison to her. On June 13, 1993, also she left the matrimonial home on her own, threatening them that she would involve them in some false case.

On the basis of these pleadings, issues were struck by the lower Court. Parties adduced their evidence.

On minutely scanning the evidence on record, the lower Court came to the conclusion that the wife has proved that the husband and his mother have treated her with cruelty and thus the decree of divorcee was passed in her favour.

Appellant''s learned counsel contended that so far as the demand of dowry is concerned, this is not proved by the petitionerrespondent. The evidence adduced on this point is inconsistent and does not inspire confidence. So far as the incident of April 20, 1993, is concerned, as she as having headache she took some tablet, which reacted. Immediately she was removed to the hospital by the husband. She remained in the hospital for the night and on the other day she was brought back to the matrimonial home. Police also intervened and her statement was recorded, wherein the admitted that by mistake she took a wrong medicine, which reacted. She had raised a patently false plea against the husband and motherinlaw that they tried to give some poison to her.

Commenting on the evidence adduced by the petitionerrespondent, appellant''s learned counsel valiantly argued that she and her father have deposed that after this incident there was some news in the local papers. Reading the same when her father came with many persons, her motherinlaw and the husband did not permit them to meet Anu Kumari and only on the intervention of the police, they were permitted to meet Anu Kumari. His comment is that it is unbelievable that when 15 persons reached the house of the appellant, appellant or his mother could prevent them from meeting Anu Kumari.

Learned counsel further stressed with all the persuasiveness at his command that on June 13, 1993, also when she left the matrimonial home she gave a writing wherein she has specifically mentioned that she is going to her parental home as her mother is reported to be ill and she went with her uncle and brother. He further pointed out that the appellant has produced letters written by her friend Sangita to her, to which she has responded. According to him, from a plain perusal of these letters it is evident that the husband never behaved with her cruelly. She has written to her friend in unequivocal terms that the behaviour of her husband is very good towards her.

His contention is that after the marriage as she was not satisfied with him, she wanted to get out of this matrimonial tie, thereby she has falsely engineered this ground of cruelty, which she utterly failed to substantiate. She has treated the husband and motherinlaw with cruelty. She had filed one criminal case against them under sections 498A/406 IPC. During investigation of that case, police entered into their house on November 20, 1993, and recovered all the items which they could find lying in the house of the appellant. He also submits that it is wrong that any fridge or T.V. was given as dowry or later on at any point of time the husband or the motherinlaw demanded a scooter for use of the husband or cash amount for starting business for the husband. He also pointed out that so far as the alleged cruel behaviour of the husband and motherinlaw is concerned, their witness Devinder Kumar AW3 has tried to state that after her marriage he went to her matrimonial home to entrust ladoos. At that time he could see that Anu Kumari was not happy in that house. He again went to them on September 22, 1992, to make a request, that Anu Kumari with her husband should come to have meals with him. At that time Anu Kumari was all alone in the house. She was weeping and complaining that she has just been thrown in a well. She also complained that she is being beaten daily. Thereupon she sent letter Exhibit AW3/1 on September 23, 1992. According to him, this letter is a forged one. He also commented on the letters Exhibits PW5/1 and 2. According to him, these letters were later on written by Anu Kumari and with the assistance of postal authorities, they got them stamped.

Appellant''s learned counsel pointed out that Sunil Kumar appellant has stated on oath that he was behaving properly with his wife. He or his mother never beat Anu Kumari, never commented that sufficient dowry was not given and never demanded Rs. 50,000/ in cash or a scooter. This witness has explained the incident of April 20, 1993. Appellant''s counsel in this context has further argued that admittedly after alleged incident of April 20, 1993, she lived in the matrimonial home till June 13, 1993. Thus, it is obvious that either the plea of said cruelty is not believable or if at all it can be assumed to be an act of cruelty, it is condoned by Anu Kumari by living with the husband till June 13, 1993. According to him, the wife never wanted to live in the matrimonial home. She wanted Sunil Kumar to shift to her father''s place and to reside with them as their resident soninlaw. Since Sunil Kumar declined, as he is living with his widowed mother and younger brother and was not in a position to leave his own house, this enraged her and she filed this divorce petition. After June 13, 1993, he made many attempts to bring her back, went on his own and took panchayat also, but she and her father constantly denied to rehabilitate her. Thus, according to him, the trial Court has fallen into an error in granting decree of divorce in favour of the wife respondent.

Wiferespondent''s learned counsel contended that Anu Kumari has proved that she was treated with cruelty by the husband and the motherinlaw. At the time of her marriage, her father spent a lot in performing the marriage, gave sufficient dowry, but still they were not satisfied. After few days of marriage, they started commenting that sufficient dowry is not given. On that account, she was taunted and was beaten also. Later on they started demanding a scooter and Rs. 50,000/ in cash, so that the husband may start his business. She tolerated all that. Once she was turned out of the matrimonial home. She came back to her parental home but when Sunil Kumar went to her, apologised and promised not to beat her and not to demand any dowry, she came back to the matrimonial home, but again she was beaten cruelly. She was not allowed to meet her relations freely or to talk to them. She was not treated like a human being. Once they tried to give her some medicine or poison. On the intervention of the neighbours she was removed to the hospital and on the following day the husband brought her back on his own against the advice of the doctor. Under some threat and pressure she was made to give statement to the police that she took some medicine, which reacted. When her father along with certain other persons reached her matrimonial home, the husband and motherinlaw did not permit them to see her. Only at the intervention of the police, they were allowed to meet her.

Balbir Chand Zakhmi AW1, who was a middleman in settling this marriage, was examined. He has proved that in this marriage, respondent''s father spent more than one lac rupees and on the next day of the marriage when Anu Kumari came back to the parental home along with Sunil Kumar for Phera Sunil Kumar commented that his mother is not satisfied with the tops given to her as they are of very light weight. At that time her father gave him Rs. 2,000/, so that tops of heavier weight may be got prepared for his mother. This witness has also proved the incident that took place an April 20, 1993, when he along with Anu Kumari''s father went to see her on reading the news item that poison was administered to her.

Anu Kumari has also examined Shish Pal, who is nextdoor neighbour of Sunil Kumar and his mother. It is not denied by the appellant that he is not occupying the adjacent house. He can see and hear the happenings of her matrimonial home. He heard them creating problems for her on account of insufficient dowry. This witness has categorically stated that on April 20, 1993, there was a big quarrel in her house. He went to her house and saw that some salty water was being given to Anu Kumari and thereafter she was sent to the hospital. This witness has honestly stated that he does not know whether she took some medicine on her own or poison was administered to her.

Rajender Kumar AW4 has also testified that whenever he saw Anu Kumari and met her, he realised that she was not happy in her matrimonial home. She was feeling suffocating. She was not allowed to meet them or to talk to them He met them in October 1992 also and tried to patch up the differences. He too has stated that Sunil Kumar was demanding a scooter and Rs. 50,000/ in cash. This witness has also testified that on February 19, 1993, Sunil Kumar came to his house along with his mother and said that they are ready to rehabilitate Anu Kumari. Hence she went along with them to her parental home on February 20, 1993, and thus she was brought back to her matrimonial home on the assurances given by him and her husband. This witness is categoric that even thereafter there was no change in the behaviour of her husband and motherin law.

Anu Kumari AW5 has admitted that the writing Exhibit R1 is in her hand and letters Exhibits R2 and R3 are in the handwriting of her friend Sangita and letter Exhibit R4 is in her handwriting, but according to her she never received these letters of Sangita. Explaining writing Exhibit R1 respondent''s learned counsel vehemently contended that no woman who goes from her matrimonial home to her parental home in a routine way to see her ailing mother would write, such a (sic) while leaving the matrimonial home. This only shows that when she was leaving the matrimonial home on June 13. 1993, she was compelled to writ this writing, which could be used against her later on. He also valiantly argued that the torture meted out to her, the dowry demands made, the dissatisfaction showed towards the inadequacy of dowry given at the time of her marriage, all these facts are evident from her letters Exhibits PW5/1 and PW5/2. This objection has no basis that these letters were written later on by Anu Kumari and with the assistance of the postal authorities, seals are put thereon.

Cruelty is not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It is to be judged taking into consideration the status of life, the standard of living, the family background and the society in which the parties are accustomed to move, because particular behaviour may amount to cruelty in one set of circumstances and may not be so in other set of circumstances. Within few months of uniting into matrimonial tie, the nobler and finer emotions and sentiments of love, affection, sympathy, compassion, cooperation and tolerance dried up between the parties. Who engineered it is to be found out not only from the ocular and documentary evidence on record but also after taking into consideration the family background, social status, level of education and thinking of the spouses, which is reflected in their conduct during this short span of matrimonial life.

Admittedly, Anu Kumari was married to Sunil Kumar on July 25, 1992. She is living at her parental home from June 13, 1993. What transpired within this short spell of time is to be judged not only on the basis of the evidence on record but also by trying to understand the conduct of the parties. Admittedly, she was not blessed with any child. The motherinlaw is working as a midwife. Husband is not earning anything. Brotherinlaw is younger to Sunil Kumar. As Anu Kumari has proved, in her marriage more than one lac rupees were spent by her father. No woman likes to break her matrimonial home without any sufficient and reasonable cause. Anu Kumari has categorically stated that her husband and motherinlaw initially used to taunt her about insufficiency of dowry; then they started demanding a scooter and Rs. 50,000/ in cash. It is also proved that immediately after the marriage on the very next day the husband complained that his mother is is not satisfied with the tops given to her by her father as they are of light weight; thereupon the father gave him Rs. 2000/ to add some more gold in those tops. Anu Kumari''s father has also proved that once Sunil Kumar came to his house along with Anu Kumari and at that time he gave him Rs. 15,000/ to purchase a T.V. No doubt, Anu Kumari has not stated so but from Anu Kumari''s letters Exhibits AW5/1 and AW5/2 all these facts are clearly borne out. From letter Exhibit AW5 it is evident that she was not allowed to correspond with her parents. She has mentioned in this letter that whatever cash was given to her was also taken away by her husband and motherinlaw and whatever cash her father has given to them they have purchased a fridge; remaining amount is with them and they say that this item is purchased by them. In this letter she has also written specifically that Sunil Kumar is demanding Rs. 50,000/ for starting business for himself. She has also written that he is beating her off and on. In the second letter Exhibit AW5.2 she has explained how after the incident of April 20, 1993, under pressure she gave some statement to the police and why thereafter she remained in their house. In this letter she has also complained that now her husband has started beating her almost daily. In this letter also she has written that her husband and motherinlaw are demanding a scooter in dowry. By any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that these letters are forged ones. Hence the plea of cruelty is completely borne out from these letters, Man may lie but circumstances do not. If this would not have been the behaviour of husband and motherinlaw, Anu Kumari would not have written these letters in these words.

So far as the letters of Sangita Exhibits R2 and R3 are concerned, no doubt Anu Kumari has admitted that they are in handwriting of her friend Sangita. Sangita is not examined by her. Be that as it may, a plain perusal of these letters reveals only this much that Anu Kumari wrote to Sangita that her husband (Sunil Kumari) is a very good person and Sangita advised her not to cause any problem for her husband. In letter Exhibit R4 there is some reference to Sangita''s letter, but in this letter also there is some mention about the behaviour of Sunil Kumar. Even if these letters are considered, which are purported to have been written by Sangita on September 16, 1992 (Exhibit R2; the other letter does not bear any date), the same were written immediately after her marriage. She was married in the month of July 1992. If within 2/3 months of her marriage, she is writing to her friend that the behaviour of her husband is good towards her, it cannot be said that thereafter her complaint about his cruel, is totally false. Firstly, no girl, who is recently married, would write to her friend within 2/3 months of her marriage that her husband is not behaving properly with her unless the behaviour is so much cruel and intolerable that she is unable to resist herself. Even if during those initial months the behaviour of the husband is cruel, she will not jump into making complaints against her husband to her friend who is of her age. Hence from these letters of Sangita much cannot be made out.

So far as the dowry articles are concerned, admittedly when she lodged a report with the police, various articles were recovered from their house. The list of those seized articles is on record. In these articles T.V. cover and Icetray of fridge are also mentioned. If they were not having any fridge, what for icetray of fridge was lying in their house. If there was no T.V. what for T.V. cover was purchased. This only shows that after filing of that complaint by Anu Kumari, they have removed these big items from their house, but they missed to remove T.V. cover and icetray of fridge from their house.

Thus, according to me, the lower Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has arrived at a correct conclusion that Anu Kumari has proved that the husband has behaved cruelly towards her. His cruel behaviour was intolerable and she felt that there is danger to her life if she continues to live in the matrimonial home; otherwise there was no reason, not even one suggested by the husband or the motherinlaw for her leaving the matrimonial home. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/.