NALINI SUNDER Vs. G V SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the wife calls in question the correctness of a Judgment and Decree passed by the prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M. C. No. 419/1988 whereby the said Court has allowed the husband's petition u/s 13{l) (ia)of the Hindu Marriage Act and dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce.

(2.) THE parties are Hindus by faith, they were married at Bangalore on 2-5-1985. Out of the wedlock, the couple had begotten a child who is presently living with the appellant. Differences having arisen between the couple, they have been living separately since 1988. M. C. Nb. 419/1988 was in the above background filed by the husband before the Family Coiirt at Bangalore for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the appellant wife treated the husband with cruelty. The petition enumerated the alleged acts of omission and commission which according to the husband constituted cruelty and entitled him to the relief prayed for. He inter alia alleged that after their honeymoon, when the couple returned to Bangalore, the wife started a quarrel with the petitioner on the ground that sufficient water was not stored in the house. The husband's version was that water supply during the relevant period was generally scant in Bangalore but instead of adjusting herself to the quantity available, the wife unnecessarily made a fuss over the same and continued quarrelling with the husband right past midnight. It was alleged that the husband had provided all conforts to the wife and used to give her the freedom to run the house. Even the aged mother of the husband who was living with them shifted to the house of her elder son in order to leave the parties to themselves. She was even advised to keep herself busy in some activity or the other during her leisure hours. The wife all the same continued her abnormal behavior and was in the habit of getting violent on the flimsiest of reasons; it was during this period of their matrimonial turbulence that the wife conceived which renewed the husband's hope that she would mend her ways once the responsibility and the joys of motherhood fell on her. The hope did not however come true for after the delivery of the child at Bombay, the wife returned to Bangalore without any behavioral change for the better in her. On the contrary, she according to the petitioner started using the child as a tool to inflict misery upon the husband. Of the various methods adopted by the wife to incite the husband, the one she used more than once was by threatening to kill herself so as to implicate him. The attempts of the husband to pacify her would increase her violence and make her more aggressive. She could according to the petitioner be brought back to normal behavior only if the husband put-shouted her. Often the husband had to leave the house and return home hours later to avoid such undersirable situations. She would even terrorize the child and abuse her. The child also suffered in the process of the bouts of violence and shouting that would ensue. The husband's further case was that something appeared pathologically wrong with her psyche. Even when the matter was brought to the notice of her parents, they showed little or no concern at all saying that things would work out by themselves. Psychiatric consultations advised by the husband was also brushed off by the wife and her parents. The conduct of the wife according to the averments made in the petition resulted in continuous physical and mental tension for the husband. The result was that the husband had developed a serious apprehension that she might harm the husband, herself or the child. The wife having left her matrimonial home in April, 1988 never to return had left no alternative to the husband but to file a petition for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty.

(3.) THE wife appeared before the Family court to file objections in which she refuted the allegations made by the husband, It was denied that she had created a scene on the day the couple returned from the honeymoon because of insufficiency of water at the home. According to the wife, the husband was aloof, unsociable and non-co operative towards the wife in all respects. She was not even allowed to talk to him freely ever since they got married. He would exhibit his dominant attitude without any reason in presence of all the members of the family. Even the husband's mother contributed to the tension between the couple and nourished the husband's ill feelings towards the wife. The objections further stated that the husband's mother was practicing what is described as 'madi' and freed the wife to go to her aunt's place one or two days before her menstrual period and come back after the fifth day bath. This made the wife a laughing stock in and around her aunt's place who would tease her by saying that she had come on french leave. The husband's mother would constantly complain about the wife and insist that the couple should not close their bed room door as she may require assistance on account of her old age and ill health. She would insist that the husband could have got more beautiful and younger girls for marriage and even when sufficient dowry in terms of various articles, gold, jewels etc. , had been given, she was not satisfied with the same. The wife's further case was that she used to do all household work and even look after the young baby. Neither the petitoner nor his mother used to touch the baby. She also made allegations against the relatives of the husband who were accused of insulting her by asking her husband how his Bombay wife was. The behavior of the husband's brother was also described as indecent. The objections went on to state that the husband would never care for the wife except during the visits of his friends and his clients who would come to stay with them. The clients were according to the wife allowed to stay at home and have free access to their bedroom. They used to talk irrelevant things, and even puff cigarette smoke on her face in the kitchen. If she complained, the husband would turn serious and stop talking to her for months. To add insult to injury, the advice tendered to the husband by his elder brother was to kick and beat his wife from time to time and to make sure that the husband remained a terror for the wife. The allegation that the wife had gone away to Bombay on her own was denied and it was alleged that the wife and child had been sent away with a view to enable the husband to file a petition for divorce on the advice of his friends and close relatives. Suffice it to say that the allegations made in the petition by the husband were all denied and the wife's version about what happened in the matrimonial home set out in great detail. An allegation to the effect that the husband had developed friendship with one R. Madhavi, a divorcee working as a lecturer was also made. It was alleged that the husband had already married Madhavi and that the divorce petition was filed only to ensure that the wife and her child are removed from the scene so that they do not claim any share in the wealth acquired by him.