AUTAR SINGH PAINTAL Vs. IRIS PAINTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st Oct. 1983 passed by the Against judgment and Decree of G. S. Dakha, Additional District Judge. Delhi. D/-31-10-1983. learned Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby his petition under S. 27(b)(d) of the Special Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion and cruelty was dismissed.

(2.) The parties were married under the Special Marriage Act on Dec. 5,1949 at Timli District Dehradun. After the marriage the parties resided and cohabited as husband and wife at various places. Lastly they resided and cohabited in Director's bungalow Vallabh Bhai Patel Chest Institute, Delhi. It is alleged in the petition that the married life of the parties was very happy and from the wedlock three children were born namely Anita (now married), on 7th Feb. 1953, Miss Priti on 2nd Feb. 1960 and Gautam on 22nd Sept., 1961. The relations between the parties were quite cordial and peaceful until March 1964. The petitioner being highly qualified renowned research scholar, one of the top most scientists in the country and known for his hard work and devotion to his duties, was appointed as a Director of V. P. Chest Institute in the year 1964. The functioning of the said Institute is among others to conduct and carry out research and also to conduct the courses such as M.D., M.Sc., D.T.C.D. and Ph.D. etc. The petitioner himself is qualified with degrees'of M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.. F.R.C.S., F.A.M., F.A.M.S. and F.M.A. It is alleged that the nature of the work of the petitioner is supervisory, administrative as well as that of guiding of the academic staff engaged in the Institute. In addition he is expected to carry out his own research and experiment in a specially maintained laboratory exclusive for him which is known as Director's laboratory. In order to carry out his various types of research, the petitioner-appellant has to be assisted by members of academic staff of the Institute. Besides this, the appellant in the capacity of a Director and a top most Scientist is generally invited by the foreign institutions to deliver lectures, read papers and give consultations pertaining to progress in the field of his profession. He, therefore, visits foreign countries for this purpose off and on. Because of the nature of the work, the appellant is engaged, he spends more of his time in the laboratory carrying on various experiments and research. Due to this, the appellant remains in the laboratory most of the time. It is alleged that ever since the appellant joined as the Director he has been burdened with heavy and valuable responsibility. As such the appellant had devoted most of his time in his research study and guidance. The respondent because of these reasons started quarreling, harassing, annoying and defaming the appellant in circle of friends, relatives, society and staff members. This fact is borne out, according to the appellant, from various letters written by the respondent, which have been enclosed with the petition. In the petition a particular reference has been made to letter dated 8th April 1964 written by the respondent to the appellant wherein the respondent has shown complete indifference to the relatives of the appellant and has gone to the extent of saying' that the appellant must completely break of with his relatives and in particular with his father. It is alleged that the appellant repeatedly told the respondent that they had entered into a much advanced age and had got grown up children and hence no displeasure be created which may affect adversely the minds of the children and the position of the appellant. However, the respondent did not realise the same and acted to the prejudice of the appellant. A reference has been made in the petition to various letters written by the respondent which have resulted in spoiling the image of the appellant in the circle of his colleagues, superiors and relatives. It is further alleged that instead of mending the behaviour the respondent started abusing, insulting and harassing the appellant in the presence of the children and also academic staff members working under the appellant. The respondent many times threatened the appellant that she would withdraw from the company of the appellant and would go abroad to settle there. The appellant persuaded her to give up that sort of attitude and live as a wife in the interest of the children and the family. However, the respondent refused to live in the company of the appellant due to which the appellant had been leading the deserted life even when the parties were staying under one roof. The respondent rarely talked to the appellant and always acted against the wishes of the appellant. which is not expected of a wife. As a result of which a great mental strain came on the mind of the appellant and he became seriously ill but the respondent did not care or bother for the appellant.

(3.) It is further alleged in the petition that from the beginning of Jan. 1978 the relations between the parties became worst and ever since they have been residing separately though under the same roof. It is further alleged that the conduct of the respondent towards the appellant became so harsh and inhuman and in her attempt to defame the appellant, she even started abusing and insulting the appellant in his office and laboratory. It is alleged that on 5th Oct. 1978 the respondent came to laboratory and abused the appellant in most inhuman manner and informed him that she had decided to leave him for good and go away to Lancaster as planned earlier. The very next day the respondent came to laboratory again and made a trunk call to Lancaster from a telephone in the laboratory informing Prof. Elizabeth Perrot that she was leaving Delhi for good. The respondent also wrote many letters to the appellant to demoralise him. It is alleged that the appellant has been earning quite handsome salary besides various other facilities such as bungalow, car etc. in the capacity of a Director and as a faithful husband he handed over and provided the respondent with all the expenses needed for running of the house-hold. The respondent started accumulating all the wealth in her name with the result that the appellant is left with only his monthly income and the respondent on the other hand has become the moneyed lady. A particular reference is made to a publication in "Blitz" in its issue dated March 29, 1980. It is also alleged that the respondent has been impressing upon the children to harass the appellant as a result of which the children have also started non-co- operation with the appellant. A particular reference is made in the petition to the letter written by the respondent to the Vice- Chancellor of the Delhi University and the letter of the Vice-Chancellor to the appellant. The said letters indicate the grievance of the respondent regarding extra-marital activities of the appellant with one Miss Ashima Anand a junior colleague of the appellant. It is further stated that the respondent by her conduct and actions amounting to cruelty, insults, humiliation and annoyance has Lompelled the appellant to leave the bedroom and then the house and stay separate. The appellant has been leading a deserted life since the last several years and the respondent has got no interest in the appellant.