MUKUL KUMAR CHATURVEDI Vs. NEELAM CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the husband against an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, on 7-4-81. This case illustrates how false sense of pride (and prejudice) in caste traditions, followed by the elders, totally destroys matrimonial life and happiness of the younger generation. The appellant's father, who is incidently an Advocate, vehemently claimed before me the caste tradition of habitual submission by a daughter-in-law to the dictates of the in-laws. He takes chauvinistic pride in the fact that his family belongs to Chaturvedi Brahmin community. The family of the respondent wife also belongs to the same community. But it is not treated as equal because it is less affluent. The caste pride has resulted into a double- tragedy in the present case. There are cross marriages between the two families. The (appellant) husband's sister Marnata is married to Narendra Kumar, brother of the (respondent) wife. The two young couples are now locked up in a bitter matrimonial fight and languishing in courts.

(2.) The family of the appellant comes from the village Kaimganj, Farukhabad (U.P.). The appellant is employed as an Officer in the State Bank of India in Varanasi. The family of the wife comes from Delhi. The marriage was celebrated according to Hindu rites at Danpur, District Bulandshahar, U.P. on 22.6-1979. After the marriage the couple stayed at Kaimganj, that is the place of the parents of the husband, for a few days. The husband thereafter went to Varanasi and wife came to Delhi where her father and brothers are staying. From the evidence on record and arguments advanced before me by the father of the appellant husband (who appeared as a lawyer for the husband) it is clear that the trouble started with the suspicion raised by the husband's family that the respondent's brother was living in illicit relations with another woman. The appellant's sister, therefore, withdrew her company from her husband. Moreover the parents of the appellant persuaded the appellant to desert his wife so as to utilise this marriage as a liver to pressurise respondent's brother to 'behave'.

(3.) The respondent wife claims that there was proper love and affection between her and the appellant husband. They liked and loved each other. The wife claims that after her return to Delhi from Kaimganj the appellant used to come to Delhi and stay with her in the railway colony, Naya Bazar, Delhi. These were the quarters allotted to her father. By this time the approaches and attempts for compromise between the respondent's brother and appellant's sister were going on. However, by and by the relations became more strained and the appellant on the advice of his parents, started avoiding his wife. The appellant admits the fact that after the marriage, for about nine months they did not stay together at Varanasi where the appellant was doing his service. It is admitted by both the sides that during the month of March, 198), respondent wife went to Varanasi. But there are different versions. According to the wife she went to Varanasi to join her husband. She was accompanied by her brother Virender Kumar. But the husband did not allow her to stay with him. They, therefore, stayed in the house of the neighbour and returned to Delhi when it was found that the husband was adament. The story of the husband is little different. According to him the wife's brother, Virender Kumar brought her to Varanasi to him. It is stated that this was contrary to the religious practice of the Chaturvedi community. It is claimed that according to the practice, the bride should not go to her husband's house without a formal letter of invitation as the same is inauspicious. It is then claimed that the appellant wrote to his mother to come to Varanasi and to take the wife to Kaimganj where the in-laws were staying. It is then urged that instead of going to Kaimganj with the mother-in-law, the wife left Varanasi and went to Delhi. Whichever version is accepted, it is clear that the parties did not live as husband and wife at Varanasi. I have no hesitation in holding that the false and ignominious sense of pride and the out-dated usages/practice, harboured by the husband's family, prevented the union of young couple at Varanasi. The husband denies that he stayed with the wife at Delhi any time. Petition under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was thereafter filed by the wife for the restitution of conjugal rights. She also moved an application for pendente lite interim maintenance and litigation expenses.