HARI CHAND Vs. BIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a petition for a divorce under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Shri B. B. Gupta, Additional, District Judge, Delhi, by judgment dated 16th March, 1974, held that the appellant was not entitled to a dissolution of marriage either on the ground of cruelty or on the ground of desertion. The unsuccessful husband has appealed to this Court.

(2.) The facts of this case are that the marriage between the parties took place on 18th Aug. 1969, and a child was born on 30th January, 1973. The case of the husband was that the wife had misbehaved with the petitioner's parents and brothers and their wives and had abused them publically. But, though her attitude was undesirable, the petitioner husband and his relations had tolerated the indignity to keep peace in the family. According to the husband, the wife deserted the petitioner on 2nd Aug., 1970, again on 18th July, 1972 and finally on 7th June, 1974. It was claimed that on the first two occasions, the wife had been brought back but had gone away again. It was claimed that on the first occasion, she was brought back on 5th March, 1972 by Budh Ram and Jaman Dass, on the second occasion she was brought back on 13th Jan., 1974, by Tek Chand. The reason for the desertion was stated to be the fact that the wife wanted the husband to live at her own fathers place as Ghar Jawai; the husband had refused to do which annoyed the wife. It is also alleged that there was a threat to the husband through some anonymous letters dated 7th April, 1975, 7th May 1975, and 7th June, 1975.

(3.) On the other hand, it was claimed by the wife that she had not deserted the husband and had continued to live with him till 18th July, 1975, when she was turned out under duress and force. The wife claimed that she had love and affection for each and every member of the petitioner's family, but the relations of the husband had misbehaved with the respondent. It was further claimed that the allegations of separate residence, etc., are false. Furthermore, as far as her misbehaviour was concerned it was pointed out that the husband's father had died even before the partition of the country in 1947, and the brothers, etc., lived separately. The only family member who hied with the couple was the mother-in-law, who was treated with great respect by the wife and there was no occasion for misbehaving with her. It was rather alleged that it was the petitioner who had mercilessly beaten the respondent, but she had kept mum over the incident with a view to maintain the family happiness. One other point made in the written statement was that both the husband and wife were working people and the petitioner's mother was an old lady who was much needed to look after the infant child.