AMARJIT SINGH Vs. GURNAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the husband is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28-5-1983 whereby his petition under section 13 (1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was dismissed.

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that the parties were married on 27-1-1974 at Delhi in accordance with Sikh rites and customs. After the marriage, the parties resided together as husband and wife and from the wedlock a male child was born in Dec., 1974. The respondent wanted to lead a free life of going and coming from matrimonial home without the consent of the appellant and in spite of the appellant having objected to the same. The respondent persisted in leading that life. The behaviour of the respondent towards the appellant was unbecoming, unreasonable and harsh on number of occasions. The respondent even went to the extent of insulting the appellant in the presence of his relations and friends. The suspicious movements of the respondent aggravated the circumstances and marital life of the parties. The appellant tolerated this behaviour of the respondent under the belief that the respondent might change her behaviour when and if any child is born to the parties. However, in spite of the child having been born, the behaviour of the respondent did not change. The respondent went to the extent of stealing articles from the house of the appellant thereby causing a loss of Rs. 20,000 to the appellant. It is further alleged that in the beginning of the year 1977, the respondent developed some affiliations with some outsider and under his advice joined the service in Hotel Vikram against the wishes of the appellant with a view to humiliate the appellant but in spite of that the appellant never wanted to widen the matrimonial gap and tolerated the said acts of the respondent. But the tolerance did not last long and the respondent left the petitioner's house on 22-1-1977 along with the child and thus deserted the appellant. The respondent joined the hotel Vikram as house-keeper and in connection with her job she had stayed in the hotel for nights which was not desirable by respectable Hindu families. The said acts of the respondent caused physical and mental torture to the appellant which caused mental cruelty. It is further alleged that the appellant was not allowed to meet his child although he was the natural guardian of the child. The appellant requested the respondent and her parents that the respondent should join the matrimonial home but the respondent refused to do so.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondent-wife. The factum of marriage and the birth of the child have not been disputed. The allegations regarding cruelty alleged by the appellant have been disputed. It is stated that it was the appellant who had become unreasonable, harsh and cruel towards the respondent. The appellant used to misbehave and abuse the respondent for no fault of hers in presence of his parents. It is further alleged that the appellant wanted to lead luxurious life. He was a drunkard and womanizer. Whenever the respondent would try to stop this from doing all these acts, the respondent was treated badly and was given beatings. She denied that she had ever stolen anything from the house and stated that the appellant for leading his luxurious life used to steal things from his house and would blame the respondent for the same. It is further stated that the appellant wanted to get rid of the respondent, the appellant on one night got one letter signed from her and took her to her parents' house and left her with the understanding that he would call her back whenever he needs. The respondent pleaded with the appellant not to treat her in that manner but the pleadings had no effect on the appellant. It is further stated that the appellant has remarried with a girl named Rummy with whom he was having illicit relations during the days when the parties were residing together. The said Rummy and the appellant are staying together. It is also stated that the appellant was forcing the respondent to join service but the respondent was not willing to do so. The respondent had to join service in Hotel Vikram only after she was driven out of the matrimonial home and not a penny was provided for her or for the child by the appellant. It is stated that the cruelty is on the part of the appellant and not on the part of the respondent. The appellant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongs.