M K MALHOTRA Vs. KIRTI MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the judgment dated August 31, 1985 passed by Shri R. C. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the husband's petition under S. 13(l)(i)(a)oftheAct.

(2.) The parties were married on January, 21, 1976 at Delhi according to Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies. They resided and cohabited at Delhi and a male child called Miki was born on December 20, 1976. The allegations in support of the petition for a decree of divorce on ground of cruelty and the particulars of the cruelty as given therein are these. The respondent is alleged to have entered her marital home with a preconceived notion that she was not only educated but earning too and. therefore, she was much I superior to her mother-in-law and for this reason the respondent started treating the appellant's mother as the maid servant of the house and humiliated her with insults and abuses frequently. The second incident is that in the first week of January, 1977 the appellant's family received alarming telegrams that the appellant's sister who was pregnant, was seriously ailing at Katni and his mother was compelled to go to Katni to see her ailing daughter. The respondent is alleged to have objected to her going to Katni on the ground that there was nobody at home to render services to her and her newly born child. The appellant's mother actually left for Katni on January 10, 1977. The contention is that the respondent felt insulted and incapable of shouldering the household responsibilities solely by herself and she left the home the same day i.e..January 10,1977 along with her child without caring for the torture or the difficulties which the appellant would have to undergo in their absence. On return from Katni the mother of the appellant herself along with the appellant went to the parental house of the respondent and brought her back home on April 27, 1977. The third incident is that of December 18, 1977 when the respondent again left the home on the ground that the appellant had given only Rs. 501.00 to the respondent's father on the occasion of the marriage of the respondent's sister. The respondent's father is alleged to have been annoyed on this account and so the appellant was not even invited to the function held on the following day when all other relatives had assembled. It is averred that she came back on the following day with her brother to collect all her belongings and ornaments and went back to her parental home the same day where she stayed continuously for as many as 10 months. On October, 8, 1978 with the intervention of some mutual friends, the appellant brought back the respondent to his home. A grievance is made by the appellant that the respondent even after the marriage ensured to uphold her unrestricted freedom of movement without any care for marital responsibilities and views of her husband. The respondent went out in June, 1976 on a trip to Kashmir along with her friends and it is alleged that it was in total disregard of the protests of the appellant and that the respondent also refused to take the appellant with her on that trip wilfully so that her unrestricted freedom of movement was not hampered. During the period from December 18, 1977 to October 10, 1978 she went to Nepal, Darjeeling and other places again with her friends and it is alleged without even informing her husband what to talk of his consent. It is stated that during December, 1978 and January, 1979 she again wanted to go to Shimla with her friends, but the appellant protested against her intended visit to Shimla which she resented and ultimately left the home on January 10, 1979.

(3.) Serious allegations are then made that the respondent made false representations to the Prime Minister making baseless allegations against the appellant. The particulars of this cruelty are these. Not only did she make this representation to the Prime Minister but managed to get letters written by a few Members of Parliament. Letters were also addressed to the Home Minister making baseless allegations against the appellant. The Ministry of Home Affairs who are administratively concerned with the employment of the appellant issued a show cause notice and conducted a regular and detailed enquiry at the level of Joint Secretary. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that no misconduct could be attributed to the appellant. A similar enquiry was also conducted by the Office of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who also arrived at the same conclusion. The contention is that the respondent made all these false allegations knowing fully well that the outcome of the enquiry could have resulted in the dismissal of the appellant from Government service which was the intention of the respondent. It is submitted that this was the worst possible cruelty which was perpetuated by the respondent. It is further alleged that during 1979 the appellant had applied for leave to visit his sister in U.K. on a tourist visa. The respondent wrote to the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and tried to prevent the appellant from leaving the country. But the Ministry of Home Affairs who enquired into this aspect also, ultimately decided that the leave applied for by the appellant for the purpose of visiting U.K. could be sanctioned to him. The submission is that all these instances and efforts on the part of the respondent were intended only to create agony and mental torture to the appellant.