ABHA ASTAVANTS Vs. SURESH ASTAVANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thus, the first phase of their married life ended on a sad not. At a time when a wedded couple would be normally gripped by euphoria of sharing bliss and happiness of togetherness the seed of disharmony was sown and the marital bond was put under considerable strain. It is no wonder that disenchantment was to follow.

(2.) On a consideration of the entire evidence on the record I see no cogent reason to disbelieve the appellant and her father and brother when they say that Sushil Kumar never visited Bombay, as alleged. Surely the bald statement of the respondent which is tendentious and is aimed at casting aspertion on the character of the appellant cannot be taken as gospel truth, especially when he is actuated by a malevolent desire to somehow get rid of the appellant. He is very much prone to make every kind of pernicious insinuation against her because it subserves his real purpose of portraying the appellant as a person who would mal-treat and insult her husband so often because she could not reconcile to her marriage with the respondent on account of her infatuation and love for Sushi Kumar.

(3.) Having steered clear of many a controversy between the parties, the stage is new ripe for a probe into the cause of all the bickering, turmoil and acrimony which persisted in the conjugal life of the parties and which eventually led to a cleavage in their matrimonial bond. The respondent has painted the appellant jet black on the marriage canvas by imputing not only conjugal infidelity to her but also describing her as an arrogant, hot-headed and short-tempered woman who would pick up a row on the slightest or even no provocation. She would not bother about the daily chores of the household or the personal needs and comfort of the respondent. She had developed strong hatred for the respondent and even hurled abuses at him throwing all decency to winds. The reason for this hostile and non-compromising attitude of the appellant is stated to be her promiscuous relationship with Sushil Kumar Tandon. On the other hand, the appellant has ascribed disharmony in their marital relations to persistent greed and avarice on the part of the respondent who all the time pestered her to get money from her parents for a car/flat at Bombay. He was all the time smouldering under the feeling that his father-in-law had not given a dowry commensurate with his status in life. As for the allegation about the conjugal infidelity and promiscuous relationship of the appellant with Sushil Kuniar Tandon is concerned, 1 have already dwelt on this subject at length need not recaplulate the same. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the continuous wrangling between the parties and the alleged lack-a-dai-sical attitude of the appellant was due to highly sensitive nature and peevish temperament of the appellant or insatiable greed of the respondent.