INDU BALA TOPPO Vs. FRANCIS XAVIER TOPPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short the 'Act') seeking confirmation of the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by learned Additional District Judge. Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as the 'wife') filed an application under Section 10 of the Act praying for a decree of divorce from the respondent (hereinafter also referred to as the 'husband') on the ground that cruelty was meted out to her by the husband and his family members. Said prayer was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi in I.D.A. 661 of 1998.

(2.) . Factual background according to the petitioner is as follows: Parties entered into marital ties on 7/9/1996 and the marriage was solemnized according to Christian rites at Sacred Heart, Cathedral, Ashok Place, Gole Dakkhana, New Delhi. Five priests conducted the ceremonies. After they entered into the marital life, husband and his family members did not treat the wife with love, affection and dignity and they expressed dissatisfaction about various arrangements made by the petitioner's parents and she was subjected to torture. She had to bear the barbaric assaults made. The couple left for Siliguri on 17/9/1996 and reached there on 18/9/1996 in the evening and stayed at Bishop's house, Nirmal Hridaya. On 19/9/1996 they visited a relative and on 20/9/1996 reached Darjeeling, where the petitioner had discussed certain religious matters with the priest which were not liked by the husband and he did not talk to the petitioner on the honeymoon trip for about 24 hours. She was shocked to hear, her husband telling the priest that he made a mistake by marrying her. During their stay at Darjeeling/Siliguri, he ignored the newly wedded wife and concentrated his attention and time on the purchase of smuggled articles, which he gifted away to his acquaintances and relations. Ironically, when she desired to give some gifts/presents as an acknowledgement of love, affection and respect bestowed on them by their hosts the respondent got infuriated, and took charge of the entire money. As a result of this behaviour, the honeymoon itself turned out to be an emotional disaster. Respondent used to get heavily drunk daily and used abusive language to her and admitted to have married her for the sake of money, as he had full knowledge about her family background. He gave out that since they were only two sisters, the proportionate share in her parents, property was to come to her. Some time in October/November 1996, she overheard the respondent maligning her character and that of her parents to his visiting relatives. She was aghast and terribly shocked when one of the visiting relatives implicitly advised him to use physical force on her to subjugate her by narrating some instance in which a husband had used physical force in public to subjugate his wife. Respondent expressed his happiness and gratitude for enlightening him and immediately thereafter he tried to put the idea into practice as he shouted abusively, made threatening gestures, but stopped short of physical beating. In December 1996 around X-mas time, he invited his friends for drinks in his bedroom and when she objected to this, she was beaten up till she became unconscious. She was asked to handover her entire salary to his mother and he made it clear not to contribute even a single pie towards the household expenses. However having considered it her moral duty to be a model wife, she bore expenses of daily milk supply, newspaper, servant and other domestic provisions. In March 1997 her father-in-law wanted to construct a house for which petitioner was asked to beg, borrow and provide the money required for the construction. On refusal the respondent hit her with stick, slapped and punched her to browbeat her and also threatened to engage outsiders to physically assault her. Respondent and his parents insisted that the nomination in her provident fund account contributed by her be changed forthwith in favour of the respondent. In February 1997 or early March 1997 the respondent rebuked her as he was not happy with the way she washed his clothes and asked her to buy a washing machine and also asked her father to buy a car for him. On Easter day i.e. 30/3/1997, when the entire family was celebrating the occasion she was called to serve liquor and when she expressed her reservations, she was subjected to humiliation followed by volley of abuses culminating in physical beating till she fell unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she found herself alone in the room bolted from outside. However on her insistence, she was permitted to leave for office with instructions not to go to her parental home. She apprehended danger to her life and could not reconcile to return to the matrimonial home. She stayed with her parents for about a month and thereafter shifted to her allotted accommodation. Respondent called her stray bitch, prostitute woman and told that if she ever conceives a child, he would not accept the child to be his. During the period from 1/5/1997 to 22/8/1997, she remained at her allotted accommodation. Respondent failed as a husband in his moral and legal obligation to find out the reasons for her non return to the matrimonial home. She submitted a complaint with the "Crime Against Women Cell" on 2/9/1997 stating therein that her life was in danger and it was impossible for her to stay with the respondent. On 9/10/1997, the respondent returned her Stridhan and other belongings at "Crime Against Women Cell". He maligned her in society by making frivolous and false accusations and even resorted to character assassination.

(3.) . In the petition filed before the trial Court, petitioner has averred that she has not condoned the acts of cruelty committed by the respondent or his relatives. The petition has not been filed in collusion with the respondent and there is no unnecessary or improper delay in filing the petition. Respondent did not appear in Court though he was served with notice. The trial Court proceeded with the matter ex parte. In support of her case, petitioner examined herself as Public Witness-1. As the respondent was set ex parte no witness was examined on his behalf Considering the materials on record learned trial Judge held that petitioner has made out a case for divorce. A decree for divorce was accordingly drawn up and the case has been submitted to this Court for confirmation of the decree.