JYOTI SARUP MANOCHA Vs. LALITA MANOCHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties were married at Delhi on Fabruary 27, 1970, They come from lower middle class families. Both were em ployed even at the time of marriage. The wife left the matrimonial home in July 1970 allegedly for purposes of delivery and never returned. A female child was born to them on 15th of December, 1970. On February 27. 1971 the husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After amendment of the Hindu Marriage Act. making desertion as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) the husband filed a petition for divorce. Thereafter he got the petition for conjugal rights dismissed as withdrawn on 22.9.1976.

(2.) The husband's allegation in the petition was that the wife was working in the Institute of applied manpower and her salary in July 1970 was Rs. 475.00 . When she was pregnant in July 1970, her parents took her to their own residence on the pretext that she would be looked after better in her parent's house. The salary of the wife was kept by the parents. He was not allowed any access to the wife after 1-10-1970. The husband had told the? Wife to keep the salary to herself and not to give it to her parents and that is why her parents were annoyed. The parents of the wife had cat off the relations with the family of the husband so much so that the intimation of the birth of the female child was sent by telegram. His parents were not allowed to see the child or to offer prests. They made number of attempts for reconciliation and to take her back but the wife, on the instructions of the parents, refused to go. The petition as such does not disclose any serious reasons or circumstances which should normally result into the break" down of the marriage. There are no serious allegations by the husband against the wile. Some allegations are against the parents ; such as utilising her salary or not allowing the wife to go back to the matrimonial home. As a matter of fact the parties are living separate from each other for the last 14 years. The girl born of the wedlock is also over 13 years of ago. The wife in her defence twice amended the writ petition. The gist of her case is that the parents of the husband are gready. They were annoyed with the insufficiency of dowry. They had expected more dowry because they knew that even before the marriage, the wife was employed. They got further annoyed because, they learnt that at the time of the marriage the wife and withdrawn Rs. 2 000.00 from her provident fund and monthly cut had started after the marriage towards repayment. In order to justify her leaving the matrimonial home she had asserted that on 8th/9th July, 1970 the husband gave her serious beating and on the mid-night threw her out with bare clothes and closed the door on her. The reason for the said beating alleged by the wife is that the mother of the husband used to interfere in the matrimonial life of the parties. On the night in question, she entered the room where the couple was sleeping. She accused the wife of being a sex meniac. The reason of the abuses was that although she was pregnant she was sleeping with the husband in the bed. It was further alleged by the wife that inspite of the efforts made by the family for her going to the matrimonial home, she was not allowed to do so. Throughout this period of the separation the husband did not care for the child so much so that he neither asked for the custody of the child nor made any arrangements for the maintenance.

(3.) As usual both sides examined large number of witnesses mostly the close relations. Apart from this the wife produced some of her colleagues in the office and her superior. Both in the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights as well as present proceedings, attempts were made for the re" conciliation between the parties by the trial court but they failed. I had also called the parties in the chamber separately and their advocates. There were no serious allegations such as infidelity or persistent cruelty. Even then it was difficult to bring the parties together after 13 years. As usual the wife showed her willingness to join the matrimonial home. In the context of her allegation of severe beating and inhuman treatment, on the fateful day i.e. 8th/9th 1970 and her charge that the husband's family was greedy, it was difficult to decide how far she was sincere in her claim. The husband expressed his inability to take the wife after a lapse of 14 years. The additional reason stated by him was that he would not like to take a risk of involving himself in any criminal case in the present day atmosphere of the alleged cases of dowry victims.