Surinder Kumar Arya vs Prem Chander Sharma

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, who had dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage, on 14-3-1989.

The case of the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, as set up by him in the Divorce petition, is that the marriage between the the parties was performed on 12-10-1984 and a daughter was born out of their wedlock on 1-11-1985. As per allegations, the respondent-wife obtained a job of Lecturer in Govt. Senior Secondary School Risalia Khera through Employment Exchange on 26-11-1985, where she worked upto August 1987. The respondent-wife got herself mutually transferred with some other Lecturer from Panniwala Mota to Risalia Khera, where she joined on 11-12-1987, but the respondent resided in village Risalia Khera throughout this period. According to the appellant, the respondent had developed illicit relations with respondent No. 2. In January, 1986 when she came to see the appellant at Sirsa, she was asked by the appellant to discontinue her relations with the said respondent No.-2, who was working as PTI Teacher in her school at Risalia Khera. Upon this, the respondent felt annoyed and left the house of the appellant saying that in future she would never reside with him. It is further averred in the petition that on 26-7-1987 the appellant along with one Ram Partap, Lambardar of village Nunianwali Visited Risalia Khera and requested the respondent not to reside in the same room in which respondent No. 2 was residing and to arrange separate accommodation for her. The respondent...wife refused to accede to this request of the appellant. The appellant again visited village Panniwala Mota on 6-9-1987 and 22-11-1987 alongwith his cousin Satya Dev in order to pursuade the respondent-wife not to reside with respondent No. 2 On both the occasions, the appellant was not found in village Panniwala Mota and on enquiry, they come to know that the respondent had gone to village Risalia Khera. As such, the appellant had suffered a grave mental torture On 26-11-1987, the appellant''s father became seriously ill and as desired by his father, the appellant had gone to village Panniwala, where the respondent was posted in order to bring her and her daughter. On reaching there, the appellant came to know that the respondent had gone to Risalia Khera. The appellant then went to village Risalia Khera through a Taxi and went to the room Prem Chand, respondent No. 2., where both the respondents were found in such a dress from which it was presumed by the appellant that they were having advance stage of relations as they were sleeping in one room at night which had caused the appellant mental agony.

The case was contested by the respondents. The respondents in their written statements denied the allegations of the appellant Respondent No. 2 in this affidavit denied the visit of the appellant to his house on 26-11-1987 and also the factum of staying of respondent No. 1 Chander Kanta with him on that day or on any other day. Smt. Chander Kanta in her statement had taken a stand that in August 1987 she was turned out of the house by the appellant and since then she has been residing separately It was also mentioned in the written statement that the appellant and his parents are greedy persons. In the beginning, the appellant was not ready for his marriage with respondent No. 1, but subsequently he agreed and immediately after the marriage, the appellant and his parents started harassing her on the ground of bringing less dowry.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :

Whether respondent No. 1 has been living in adultery with respondent No. 2 ? OPP

Whether the respondent No. 1 has treated the petitioner with cruelty, if so, to what affect ? OPP

Whether respondent No. 1 has deserted the petitioner as alleged ? OPP

Relief.

The Trial Court on all the issues had turned the finding against the appellant and dismissed the divorce petition.

I have considered the submission made by the Counsel for the parties and scanned the entire evidence on record.

Though the appellant has sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and adultery, but during the course arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant confined his arguments only to the ground of cruelty and did not press for the plea of adultery.

After scanning the evidence on record, I am of the view that this Court hardly finds any justification to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Trial Court. The Counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent wife obtained a job of Lecturer against his wishes and without his consent. The respondent left the matrimonial house and is residing separately without any sufficient cause. According to the Counsel these acts of the respondent-wife amount to cruelty. From a close scrutiny of evidence on record, this Court has reached the conclusion that the respondent-wife had joined the service with the consent of her husband and the appellant created such circumstances which force her to leave the matrimonial house.

The next contention raised by the Counsel is that it is a case of broken marriage, as such the relief sought by him be given. I am not inclined to accept this contention.

In the instant case, it appears that it is the appellant-husband who is responsible for this sorry state of affairs. It Has come in evidence that he did not like the petitioner from the very beginning of his marriage. In order to get rid of her, he created such an atmosphere and levelled serious allegations against the respondent which compelled her to leave the matrimonial home and live separately from the respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the appellant who deserted the respondent wife. This Court vide its order dated 2-11-1992 directed the parties to appear in person in the Court. Despite persuation of the Court to reconcile, the compromise between the parties could not be materialised due to hard attitude adopted by the appellant who was not willing to rehabilitate his wife though the respondent-wife had shown her willingness to rehabilitate and join the matrimonial home. As such, the appellant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this appeal and consequently the same is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.