GEETA NAINY ALIAS KANTA Vs. B B NAINY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against Judgment and decree dated 27th November 1982 of an Additional District Judge dissolving the marriage between the parties by a I decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty felling under section 13(1 )(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for short the Act).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that the parties were. married on 12th February 1981 in accordance with Sikh/Hindu marriage rites and ceremonies However, they also got the marriage registered with the Marriage Officer, New Delhi, A daughter named Jyotika was born of the wedlock on 16th November 1981 at Vohra Nursing Home Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. However, it would appear that the parties were not pulling on well and on 17th January 1982 the appellant went to her mother's home consequentupon some quarrel between the parties. On 16th February 1982 the respondent-husband moved a petition for dissolution of theircarriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The respondent averred, in his petition that the behaviour and attitude of the appellant towards him and member of his family had been very uncooperative and even cruel from the very inception of their marriage because the appellant being quarrelsome in nature would pick up quarrel with him and other members of his family for no rhyme or reason and she would run away to her mother's house very often. She did not bother to look after the household chores and bluntly told the respondent that she was not a domestic servant to do all the brudgery like cooking of food and preparation of tea and snacks etc. Only after three days of her marriage she told him that she did not like the behaviour of her mother-in-law, sister-in-law i.e. bhabhi Of the respondent and brother-in-law (elder brother of the respondent) and that she could not share the household responsibilities like cooking of meals etc. However, he pacified her saying that she Would learn by arid by and that his mother and sister-in-law would extendfull cooperation in that respect. His mother and sister-in-law too assured of their full cooperation. However, the appellant never respected her mother-in-law or sister-in-law (i.e. Jethani) and misbehaved with them even. in the presence of the guests and friends of the famliy whenever she was asked to prepare tea or bring snacks etc. for the guests. Not only that, she did, not. bother t6 prepare snacks or tea even for respondent who bad to leave for duty early in morning because of shift system obtaining in his office. The appellant would not get up early and whenever she was told by the respondent that if he did not look proper that his mother or sister-in-law should give him tea or snacks at that hour she would rebuke the respondent bluntly telling him that she could not get up earlier than 8.30 AM. However, the respondent pocketed all these insults heaped on him in the wishful thinking that she would improve in due course of time. Further, according to him, she would not allow him to have sound sleep and she would disturb him in the sleep at midnight to complain that she could not pull on with her mother-in-law or sister-in-law although both of them were very nice to her and had been tolerating her misconduct. Still worse, she always felt jealous of his sister-in-law etc. Whenever, he talked to his mother, father, brother or sister-in-law or he picked up his niece. To illustrate misconduct on the part of the appellant her averred specific instance saying that on 13th November 1981 the appellant picked up a quarrel with him at about 7.00 P.M. for no rhyme or reason and then went away to her mother's house despite protests by the mother and sister-in-law of the respondent. However, 15th November 1981 she was brought back to her matrimonial home by her mother and a lady living her neighbourhood at about 11.00 at night. At that time the appellant was having labour pains. Her mother asked the respondent to get her admitted to a nursing home immediately. The respondent was indisposed and annoyed with the behaviour and attitude of appellant. Despite that, he asked his brother Sh. Mohan Nainy to rush her to Vohra Nursing Home at once. She delivered a female child on 16th November 1981 at the said Nurshing Home. Thereafter she was brought back to his house by the respondent and members of his family and was very well looked after. However, on 7th January 1982, she again pushed off to her mother's house without any rhyme or reason. The respondent, his mother, bis brother and sister-in-law again approached the mother of the appellant and brought the appellant back to the matrimonial home on 9th January 1982. However, on 17th January 1982, again she ran away to her mother's house after levelling a false charge that the respondent had illegitimate connections with his sister-in-law, that, therefore, she could not live with him and she would commit suicide or she would kill her infant child and involve the respondent and other members of his family for that crime. The respondent further alleged that the brother of the appellant had sent a written complaint dated 14th November l981 to the Administrative Officer, Indian Airlines, where he was employed, levelling false charges against him, inter alia, saying that the respondent had not even informed his office about his marriage and that he did not care to look after his wife and take her out for entertainment etc.. The said letter become a topic of the day amongst his brother officers, colleagues and subordinates etc. and he fell in their esteem. Indeed he became a target of jokes which cause great mental torture and he became a heart patient and a diabetic due to the uncooperative attitude and behaviour of the appellant. Still later, on or about ll th February 1982, a post-card dated 9th February 1982, which had been written in Hindi, was sent to his office by the brother of the respondent and he again levelled false charges against him and his sister-in-law. The post-card was read by not only his colleagues but also members of the lower staff like loaders, who started cutting jokes and making nasty comments on him. It became virtually impossible for him to sit in the office and he could not attend office on 15th February 1982. Thus, it was contended by the respondent that the aforesaid, acts of the appellant and members of her family amounted to cruelty as they had caused great mental torture and agony to him with the result that he remained depressed and upset all the time, both at home and in his office.

(3.) The petition was resisted vehemently by the appellant who contended that the respondent had suppressed material facts. She specifically refuted all the allegations about her misconduct and misbehaviour towards the respondent and members of his family. On the contrary, she asserted that the respondent was trying to take advantage of his own wrong in as much as she was subjected to humiliation and cruel treatment at the hands of the respondent and members of his family right from the inception of her marriage but she continued to suffer all the indignities heaped on her in the vein hope that better sense may prevail upon the respondent and members of his family and she would be able to lead a peaceful life. She pointed out that no woman coming of a middle-class family can afford to run to her parents house unless she is hard-pressed and meted out unbearable and inhuman treatment. According to her, the respondent used to misbehave and ill-treat her on false and lame excuses. She was even subjected to beating at his hands and she was kicked a number of times by the respondent. In particular, she averred thai the respondent used to taunt her that she was much inferior in all respects, to his sister-in-law. He would further say that he was not at all keen to marry her and he would have preferred to lead life as a free-lancer and that was the reason he married late when he had crossed forty years of age. She further stated that bhabhi of the respondent played a vital role in the management of the house-hold affairs but she was also responsible for creating disharmony in the matrimonial relations of the parties by inciting ill-feelings and breeding inferiority complex etc. in the minds of the parties. Thus, she succeeded in unsettling the married life of the couple. She vehemently asserted that she used to do all household jobs including preparation of food, tea and snacks etc. However, the respondent used to demoralise her by comparing her with his bhabhi who was dominating the household and never wanted the marital relations between the parties to be normal. She would poison the ears of the respondent by back-bitting and levelling false allegations against her. The respondent used to taunt her by telling her that the food articles prepared by his bhabhi and mother were much better than those prepared by her. This led to tense atmosphere in the house for no fault of hers. Further, according to her, the father of the respondent used to advise him not to make his own matrimonial life miserable by harassing her but the respondent never paid heed to the same. She also levelled imputation that her marriage with the respondent having been performed in a vary simple way, the respondent and members of bis family were not happy because the marriage of her younger sister was performed with pump and show. This also accentuated ill-feelings between them. As for the specific instances, she averred that she was kicked out of the house by the respondent in October 1981 and she was warned not to return to the matrimonial home. Therefore, she had no choice but to take shelter in her mother's house. However, her mother took her back to the house of the respondent after a faw days and left her there in the absence of the respondent. The respondent was annoyed over it but she tolerated his outburst that She would have to live in the house only as a maidservant as no other course was open to her. As for 13th of November 1981, she asserted that she was in advanced stage of pregnancy but even then she was kicked out by the respondent and, therefore, she had no choice but to go to her parents' bouse. However, on 15th November 1981, she started pains of parturition and, therefore her mother brought her back to he matrimonial home. The respondent, however, refused to accompany her to the nursing home but his elder brother took compassion on her and accompanied her to Vohra Nursing Home and got her admitted there. A daughter was then born to her on l6th November 1981 but the respondent never visited the hospital even once during her stay there. After a few days, she returned to her matrimonial home and on 8th December 1981, she underwent an operation in her breast but even then the respondent did not bother about her. She pointed out that being employed in Indian Airlines Corporation the respondent was entitled to medical facility/reimbursement for .himself and members of his family but he never informed his office about his marriage with her for reasons best known to him. This, according to her, was indicative of the desire of the respondent to snap the conjugal relations. On 7th January 1982, the respondent again gave beating, to her and kicked her out of his house along with her infant daughter. However, on persuasion by her mother and other relatives and on the assurance of the respondent that he would behave properly in future, she came back to her matrimonial home on the January 1982. But, the assurance lent by the respondent proved to be short-lived as,on. the morning of 15th January 1982 she was again kicked out by him from his house along with her infant daughter. Her mother again took her back to the house of the respondent but on the very next day, viz. 17th January 1982, she was again given beating by the respondent who brought her mother to his house and then pushed out and sent her along with her mother in bare three clothes. He warned both her and her mother that she would not comeback to the matrimonial home. Feeling helpless she came back to her Mother's house along with her infant daughter. She denied having levelled and imputation against the respondent and. his bhabhi of having promiscuous relations. She also denied that any letters were sent by her brother to the office of the respondent accusing him of harshand cruel treatment to his wife or having illicit relations with his bhabhi.