ASHA HANDA Vs. BALDEV RAJ HUNDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 30th August 1982 of an Additional District Judge whereby he dismissed the petition of the appellant-wife for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion falling under sub-cl. (ia) and (ib) of S. 13(1), Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 21st March 1972 at West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife up to 7th August 1977 when they parted company of each other. A daughter by the name of Nancy Handa was born out of the wedlock on 28th July 1974. The wife is presently employed as a clerk in the customs Department and is drawing about Rs. 900.00 per mensem. The respondent is employed in Punjab National Bank and is drawing more than a thousand rupees per mensem The respondent was employed in Punjab National Bank even at the time of marriage with the appellant, but it would appear that she got employment in 1973 i.e. soon after the marriage.

(3.) On 5th March 1981. the appellant moved a petition for divorce against respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. She averred that from the beginning of 1973 the respondent started forcing her to hand over her entire salary to him. As an obedient wife she complied with his wishes as she had no other option and she did not want to embitter her relations with respondent It was with great difficulty that he would give her a petty amount for her day-to-day expenses. With the passage of time, the attitude of the respondent became more and more harsh towards her and he would grudge giving her any money even for her personal expenses. At the time of the birth of their daughter she was admitted to Kapoor Hospital, Pusa Road, for delivery, but even then the respondent did not bear the expenses of her labour and medicines, etc. He managed to get even the salary for three months to which the appellant was entitled during her maternity leave from her friend. But he did not spend a single penny towards hospital bills and medicines etc. for the baby. Another grievance of the appellant is that on 15th August 1975 their child fell seriously ill She requested the respondent to call a doctor and get some medicine. However, the respondent slipped away and did not come hack for more than two hours. Left with no other alternative she herself went to the doctor and brought some medicines, etc.. by borrowing money from her neighbour. On her way back home, she found the respondent sitting in a restaurant with his friends. She went to him and asked about the medicine for the child. However, the respondent insulted her there and told her that he was not bothered about the child or the appellant