RANVIR SAXENA Vs. SUSHEELA SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment dated Feb., 4, 1983 passed by the learned Addl. Districted Judge, Delhi whereby his petition under section 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion was dismissed.

(2.) The parties were married as far back as on 19-6-1949 in accordance with Hindu rites at Delhi. They lived together at Delhi till the year 1969. It is alleged in the petition that till 1969 the relations between the parties were cordial and from the wedlock there are two male children and two female children who are residing with the respondent and are earning. It is further stated that after 1969 the respondent came under the evil influence of one R.K. Dutta and started quarrelling with the appellant and started abusing the minor children, also. The respondent went to the extent of beating the appellant and levelling with and false allegations against him with the help and consent of her children. She also spoiled the reputation and social standing of the appellant in his office as also amongst his relations. The attitude of the respondent grew from bad to worse and the respondent continued to insult and humiliate the appellant with all sorts of ill-treatment. Finally, the appellant was turned out of the Government allotted quarter by the respondent and his two grown up sons in 1970. The respondent was lead ing a hostile life in the said quarter which was allotted officially to the appellant. The appellant has not been allowed entry into the said quarter after 1970. because of these acts of the respondent, the appellant filed a petition for judicial separation against the respondent which had to be compromised because of the intervention of certain relations and well-wishers. The petition was compromised in 1977. The respondent made a statement that she will be a faithful wife and withdraw all her allegations against the appellant. However, in spite of the compromise, the respondent did not mend her ways and again assaulted the appellant repeatedly and wanted to make the appellant responsible for every trouble in the family so much so that she tried to end the life of the appellant with the help of his two grown up sons and a case under sections 323/324.325 1 P. C. was tried in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate but was finally compromised on 16.7.1977. The respondent, however, continued with her petition under section 125 Cr. P. C. for maintenance. She was awarded maintenance at Rs. 100 per month w. e. f. 20-4.1977. She challenged the order of maintenance passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the maintenance was enhanced by the Sessions Judge to Rs. 175 per month by judgment dated 10-10-1977. It is further alleged that the respondent is under the influence of the younger brother of the appellant and upon his instigation and with mala fide view to harass the appellant often goes to the police station with one complaint or the other in order to humiliate and harass the appellant. Even otherwise the respondent has been continuously threatening to ruin the career of the appellant. In these circumstances, it is not possible for the appellant to continue to bear humiliation and harassment caused by the respondent. It is further pleaded that in these circumstances and because of the continued separation from the respondent for a period ranging well over 10 years it is not possible for parties to reconcile with each other and to live as family members. The appellant does not see any hope of improvement in the attitude of the respondent and the children. In these circumstances, the prayer is for the grant of decree of divorce on the ground of desertion under section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondent-wife. The factum of the marriage and the birth of the children is not denied in the written statement. However, the allegations of cruelty levelled in the petition have been denied. It has also been denied that the respondent has been in any way under the influence of Shri Dutta. It is pleaded that the said Dutta is the husband of a school teacher under whom daughter of the parties was a student, when the appellant decided to withdraw their daughter from the school and discontinued her education. Mrs. Dutta along with her husband once visited the house of the parties in order to persuade the parties to give up the idea to discontinue the education of the child She has specifically denied that she ever insulted, humiliated or give betting to the appellant with the help of her children. It is pleaded that it is the appellant who his in fact deserted her and has left the matrimonial home. According to her the appellant had demanded from the father of the respondent a sum of Rs. 1,500 and her father having refused to pay the said amount, the appellant felt dissatisfied and got infuriated She has denied having ever disallowed the entry of the appellant to the matrimonial home. She further pleaded that appellant had lodged a false complaint against the respondent under sections 324/325 IPC. She admitted that she had filed a petition for maintenance and pleaded that she had no alternative since the appellant was not looking after her requirements or the requirements of the children. She also admitted that she had approached the office of the appellant but it was only for the purpose of saving the allotment of the Government accommodation from being cancelled.