DARSHNA KUMARI ALIAS WORSELY Vs. INDER KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the wife and cross-objection by the husband, are directed against the judgment dated 5-10-1978 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and the issue of desertion was found against the husband.

(2.) The respondent husband filed a petition under Sec. 13(l)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce. It was alleged that the parties were married on 18-2-72 at Delhi according to Hindu rites. They lived together as husband and wife since the date of marriage at 181, Gali Bandooq Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. A daughter namely Vandana Arora was born out of the wedlock on 22-11-1972 at Jeevan Hospital, Rohtak Road, New Delhi. Right from the beginning, the behaviour of the appellant-wife towards the respondent, his parents, brothers and sisters was very unbecoming and remained disrespectful. She used to fall out every now and then in spite of the great love and affection shown to her by the respondent, his parents, brothers and sisters. The parents of the respondent treated the appellant like their own daughter and the respondent also gave the greatest love and affection to the appellant. In spite of this, she treated them badly and mis-behaved. Thereby the feelings of the respondent, his parents, brothers and sisters were hurt. It was further alleged that after two or three months of the marriage, the parents of the appellant shifted to A-3, Defence Colony, New Delhi and the appellant started saying that the house of the respondent was very dirty and they do not have any status of living and should shift to Posh Colony like her brothers and parents. At this stage, the brothers and parents of the appellant also started interfering in the domestic affairs of the respondent and they usually almost every day started visiting the respondent's house. The respondent objected to this daily visit and interference in the domestic affairs of the respondent's house but they did not listen to it and started abusing the respondent, his parents, brothers and sisters. The appellant also started the same as her brothers and parents used to do and many a times created scenes whereby the neighbours used to collect and also used to tell that the relations of the appellant should not interfere in the domestic affairs of the respondent. The respondent kept on tolerating all this and used to persuade the appellant to behave properly and in a dignified manner. The appellant insisted times and again that the respondent should live separately from his parents. In order to keep the matrimonial home happy, the respondent acceded to-the unreasonable demand of the appellant and shifted to the first floor of house No. 181, Gali Bandooq Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi where he was residing at the time of marriage and became separate from his parents as the parents were living on the ground floor of the premises. The appellant went on to insist that the respondent should not support his aged parents and should not remain even on speaking terms with them. This demand of the appellant was not acceded to by the respondent as the same was highly unreasonable. The appellant used to visit her parents' house very frequently even without informing the respondent or his parents and this also caused great tension in the mind of the respondent. When the respondent used to go to the parents' house of the appellant, the appellant and her parents used to hurl filthy abuses on the respondent and used to say that in what sort of dirty house he wants to take the appellant and that they will not send their daughter to that dirty house. They also used to call the respondent as 'bhuka nanga' man who had nothing to feed the appellant. This state of affairs continued and the appellant would come with the respondent from her parent's house on his persuation. On 24-3-1973, the appellant served a glass of milk as usual to the respondent but on slipping the same the respondent found the taste slightly bitter. Forth-with the respondent suspected the foul play. On the respondent's enquiry from the appellant about the bitter taste she admitted her guilt of mixing some ashes received from a 'Sadhu' who had assured that these ashes would work wonder and make the respondent submissive to her and hostile towards the parents.

(3.) It is further alleged in the petition that on the morning of 25.3-1973, the appellant quarrelled with the respondent over the issue to have a house in posh locality and left the respondent's house in spite of the respondent's best efforts to dissuade her from this step. The respondent told the appellant that in the meagre income of Rs. 550.00 he could not afford a house in a posh locality but the appellant did not listen to the respondent and at about 10.30 in the night on the same day she returned with her father and brother to the respondent's house and they started abusing the respondent and other members of the family. They created such scenes and dangerous situation that the neighbours came out for intervention They demanded the return of the dowry and started hurling abuses on the respondent and his family members. They also threatened the respondent and his family members that they will do away with each and every family member of the respondent's family. The mohalla people of the respondent persuaded at that time that such incident do not occur in the respectable family and a daughter has to remain in her husband's house and that the parents of the wife should not interfere in the domestic affairs of the husband. The better sense prevailed on the father and the brother of the appellant and they left the appellant at the house of the respondent and assured their co-operation, to the respondent. However, few days after the same thing restarted and there was no change in the behaviour of the appellant, his parents and behaviour of the appellant, his parents and brothers. They made the life of the respondent a hell. The respondent lost all charms of a married life. After these incidents, the appellant did not allow the respondent to have sexual intercourse with her and she arrogantly refused cohabitation with the respondent. The respondent had no sexual intercourse or marital pleasure thereafter.