RAJESH DHAWAN Vs. SUSHEELDHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-4-1981 paused by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi whereby the petition under section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. It is stated in the petition that the parties were married on 13-4-1974 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and customs. Two children were born to the parties from the wedlock who are living with the respondent. The first allegation of cruelty is stated in paragraph 4 of the petition and the second one is stated in paragraph 5 of the petition. The first grievance of the appellant is that the respondent was M.A., M.Ed. whereas the appellant was only Higher Secondary and in these circumstances, the respondent used to taunt and nag him for his being less educated. It is alleged that the appellant was residing along with his parents and other family members in the house and Because of these naggings and taunts he had to leave the family house and took a separate residence, lnparagraph5ofthe petition, it is alleged that on 23-5-1979 the appellant met with an accident and fractured his pelvis bone. He had to be admitted in Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Narain Hospital and had to remain in the hospital for 23 days. During this period, the respondent only visited him once or twice and did not care to attend to him as she should have and' never brought food for him from the house.

(2.) The petition was contested by the respondent-wife. She admitted the factum of marriage and the birth of the two children. She also admitted the educational qualifications of the parties as stated in the petition. She, however, denied allegations that she used to taunt or nag the appellant for his being less educated and stated that even prior to the marriage she knew about the educational qualification of the parties. As regards attending the appellant in the hospital it is stated that she was faithfully attending to the appellant and was bringing food for him also. She stated that she was not allowed to stay in the general ward during nights but was attending on the appellant every morning and every evening. According to her, the real cause of greivance of the appellant is the lack of adequate dowry having been brought by her from her parents. She also narrated the number of family members residing in the house where the appellant was residing at the time of their marriage. It is not disputed that the appellant was residing along with his parents, two married brothers, with their families and the number of family members residing there was more than 20 and the total number of rooms available with the family was four. According to the respondent in addition to the two brothers and parents there was yet a third brother with his family residing that house, which has been denied by the appellant. In any case, it has not been disputed that more than 20 members of the family were residing in those four rooms. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, the appellant started insisting in that she should bring a refrigerator and a television from her parents as her parents had hardly spent Rs. 25,000.00 on the marriage. It is further alleged that after the appellant was discharged from the hospital he asked the respondent to bring from her parents Rs. 2000.00 as a lot of amount had been spent on the medical treatment. The respondent refused to ask her parents for any further amount and that resulted in appellant leaving the matrimonial home. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues :-

(3.) In support of his allegations, the appellant examined himself as Public Witness 1, bis brother Benarsi Lal as Public Witness 2 and Sat Nam Singh a friend of the appellant as Public Witness 3. In rebuttal, the respondent examined herself as Public Witness 1, her sister as PW 2, her landlord as RW 4, a neighbour of the parties as RW 4 and her sister's husband as RW 5. In addition to this oral evidence, the appellant placed on record carbon copies of three letters dated 29-10-1979, 9-11-1979 and 28-11-1979 written by him to the respondent. The first two letters were sent under certificate of posting and third letter was sent by registered post.