MANJU BALA Vs. SATISH KUMAR MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the wife is directed against the judgment dated 24-4-1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby her marriage with the respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

(2.) The respondent filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It is alleged in the petition that the parties were married on 22-9-1977 at Delhi in accordance with Hindu rites. After the marriage they lived together and cohabited for two weeks at the house of the husband. Thereafter the appellant-wife went to her parents. After her stay with her parents for about a week, the respondent brought her back to his house and they stayed together for about 20 days. During this period also they lived together and cohabited as husband and wife and have been visiting the house of the parents of the appellant. The appellant became pregnant but she took some medicines to terminate the pregnancy as she did not want to have child. She took the medicines without telling the respondent and his mother. When the respondent came to know of the facts, he took her to the hospital for medical assistance. By this act of the appellant, the respondent suffered mental pain and injury to his health. On 11-2-1978 at about 4-00 P.M., the appellant left the house of the respondent and took with her all the jewellery weighing about 22 tolas. When she left the house of the respondent she left a writing as no relation of the respondent was present in the house at that time. Thereby the appellant has deserted the respondent for a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the present petition. It is further alleged that on 14-4-1980, the respondent had filed a petition under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant in her written statement had falsely levelled a charge of adultery against the respondent. The appellant stated that the respondent had an adulterous relation with Smt. Asha Jain. Smt. Asha Jain, is an aunt of Dharam Chand, a friend of the respondent. Smt. Asha Jain, was married about 15 years ago and is residing at Janak Puri, New Delhi. This charge of immorality has caused a great mental shock and agony and the appellant has thus treated the respondent with cruelty. The appellant has knowingly and intentionally wanted to insult the respondent by this calculated false charge of immorality against the respondent. By this false charge, the feelings of the respondent have been injured and the respondent's reputation in the eyes of the society and brotherhood has been lowered.

(3.) The petition was contested by the appellant-wife. In the written statement, the factum of marriage was admitted, but the other allegations relating to cruelty and desertion were denied. It was pleaded after the marriage, the respondent did not allow the appellant to stay at her parents home except for casual visits in the company of the respondent. She further admitted that she had conceived a child and had a pregnancy of two months. However, the respondent against her wishes took her to Jullundur to attend a marriage and during journey in the bus from Jullundur to Amritsar, the abortion was caused by jerks which could be fatal. The appellant rushed to Delhi where she was treated at the hospital. It was also stated that the respondent developed intimacy with Smt. Asha Jain, a close neighbour and the appellant had every reason to believe that the relations between the respondent and the said Smt. Asha Jain were not that of brother and sister as professed by the respondent but were adulterous. This led to further estrangement and altercations. On 11-2-1973 early in the morning the respondent repeated his demand for additional money and threatened that if the demand is not met the appellant shall face dire consequences. The appellant pleaded her inability to meet the demand and on her refusal, the respondent got enraged. He behaved in most inhuman way and kicked the appellant out of the marital home in her wearings apparrel. She denied having taken any gold ornaments with her. She further pleaded that the respondent at no stage made any efforts for reconciliation. According to her the deserter was the respondent and not she.