PREMENDRA GUPTA Vs. SUNITA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS.A.Subbulakshmy, J.: Husband is the appellant in both the appeals.

(2.) THE husband/ petitioner filed O.P.No.210 of 1996 in the Family Court, Madras for divorce on the ground of cruelty. THE case of the petitionerw/ husband is as follows: THE petitioner and respondent got married on 25.2.1993 according to Hindu rites. Out of their lawful wedlock, a son was born to them on 29.12.1993. THE petitioner and respondent left for their honeymoon to Kodaikanal on 9.3.1993 immediately after their marriage and they were staying at Hotel for four days and three nights. During their stay at Kodaikanal, the petitioner found that the respondent/ wife was very obstinante, arrogant, cunning and crafty nature in so far as the petitioner and his parents are concerned. THE respondent's mother was perpetually interfering in the matrimonial life of the petitioner and the respondent. Just because the petitioner refused to take the respondent out on the last day in Kodaikanal, the respondent threw a tantrum, made a scene and became so sulky and she refused even to talk to the petitioner, eat any food that night or have breakfast the next morning and even refused to have marital relationship till the petitioner had to beg for pardon and only then the respondent had her lunch on the last day though throughout the return journey the respondent was very aloof and sulking. This behaviour and attitude of the respondent took the petitioner very much unawares, but on reaching Madras, the respondent painted a picture in such a glowing term, not even whispering about her tantrum, and in fact even denying it totally and the petitioner was left helpless. By the end of March, 1993, the petitioner's parents left for a visit to Kathamandu, leaving the petitioner and the respondent alone at home. At that time, the petitioner was subjected to untold cruelty, both mental and physical by the respondent and her people and the petitioner developed a fear and apathy towards the respondent. THE petitioner's father is running two loading houses availing of the concession in telephone tariff, outstation telephone calls, STD used to come and were made and received for business and other purposes, by the petitioner usually only after 10.00 p.m. and as the telephone instrument was only in the hall, there were times when the petitioner anticipating calls used to sleep off in the hall and not in the bedroom, and this was complained of by the respondent to her mother who in fact went out of the way to scold, chastize and find fault with the petitioner much to his embarrassment and humiliation. During the absence of his parents, the petitioner used to leave the respondent in her parents house and while returning from office, he used to bring the respondent back with him, but then, the respondent would pick up quarrels and arguments over nothing and she would not let the petitioner to sleep till 2.00 am of next day thus causing immense cruelty both mental and physical on the petition. Even though the petitioner took the respondent to temple, to visit friends, or go to beach or to hotel etc., the respondent made it a habit to say that the petitioner was not giving enough and sufficient time to the respondent and started picking up quarrels and arguments over it. THE petitioner being busy in his work could not clarify the matter with all and the respondent cunningly exploited this situation and went about tarnishing the image and fair made of the petitioner, much to the mental torture and embarrassment of the petitioner. THE respondent also made it a point to pick up quarrels and indulge in hostilities with the petitioner's parents and baselessly accusing them of harming the respondent and started poisoning the ears of the petitioner and others above it, but when the petitioner refused to accede to the respondent's motivated requests to live separately from the petitioner's parents, the respondent started falsely accusing the petitioner of having an affair with a girl called Kavitha who was a sister to the petitioner thereby causing immense mental anguish and cruelty on the petitioner. In September 1994, the petitioner along with the respondent, the said Kavitha, her brother and another friend had gone to the beach in the petitioner's car and while returning when the petitioner was driving with the respondent sitting besides him, the brother of Kavitha wanted to drive the car and so the petitioner came to the rear seat and on the way happened to be accused and come across uncle of the respondent, but this simple incident was even beyond proportions by the respondent and her family to bring out the fact that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was very bad, portraying sit separately even while travelling in the car. So, in such a way, the respondent was tarnishing the name of the petitioner. Further, it was a common habit of the respondent to leave the matrimonial home without informing him. In May/June, 1993 and again in November, 1993 the respondent left the matrimonial home for no reason or rhyme and on the latter occasion the respondent even refused to come back to the matrimonial home though at the time she was in advance stage of pregnancy. Even though a child was born at 11.30 a.m. on 29.12.1993. It was informed to the petitioner only at 12.30 p.m. on 29.12.1993. When the petitioner went to the hospital to see the child, the respondent asked the petitioner as to whether the petitioner or the respondent was to keep the child. It shows that the respondent had already made up her mind not live with the petitioner. Even though the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent became strained, still in April 1994, both the petitioner and respondent went to Bangalore to attend a friend's wedding, but the respondent insisted not to take the child with her, and therefore, for three days the child had to be looked after by the petitioner's mother who was, even otherwise, always looking after the child. On 12.4.1994, when the petitioner was to leave for Delhi for some business work, the respondent insisted on accompanying the petitioner which the petitioner refused and on that the respondent attempted to commit suicide by taking overdose of sleeping pills and locking herself in but on the timely information given by the house servant, the respondent was immediately taken to hospital and treated by Dr.Radhika Balakrishnan. This only demonstrates the dangerous trails and nature of the respondent. It had become the habit of the respondent to abuse, accuse, throw tantrums, became whimsical and moody, but on many occasions the respondent even attempted to raise her hands on the petitioner and in one occasion even took up a bottle to hit the petitioner in her fit of uncontrolled or uncontrollable temper. the matter between the petitioner and the respondent reached a headway after June, 1994, before and after the naming ceremony of the child who according to auspices was named as Chirag Gupta, but, this name was against and opposed to the wishes of the respondent who wanted to name the child as Nikhil Gupta and the repeated explanations to pacify the respondent that the name Nikhil was not auspicious for the child fell on the deaf ears of the respondent who refused to see any reasons. After this, the respondent turned the matrimonial home into a virtual hell till finally and after fighting with everyone in the matrimonial home including the petitioner's sister who was then there, the respondent on 24.7.1994, called her father to the matrimonial home and without either informing the petitioner or getting his consent, deserted him and left the matrimonial home and thereafter there has been no co-habitation between the petitioner and the respondent who were also not on talking terms with each other. THE respondent then resorted to even witchcraft and black magic and surprisingly, she came to the matrimonial home on 28.12.1994 allegedly to invite the petitioner to come and attend their son's birthday party organised at Presidency Club, and on the pretext of wanting to take the medical file, went upto the petitioner's bedroom and thereafter left and when the petitioner went to the bedroom, immediately after the respondent had left, the sprinkled on the bed, under the pillow and on opening the cupboard found it on all clothes like shirts, pants, etc. of the petitioner and on going to the bathroom, even on the towel and clothes hanging there, and on further search even behind the dressing table contained in a packet and thereafter the petitioner becoming suspicious did not go or sleep in the room and the next day with the help of a knowledgeable healer came to know that all this was done to cast a spell on the petitioner and it was lucky that the petitioner had not used the bedroom or bathroom otherwise, the petitioner would have been afflicted. Surprisingly, again, on 16.1.1995, the respondent called the petitioner asking him to come and see the respondent immediately and when the petitioner refused to come then and there, after just half an hour or so there after the petitioner once again received a call from the younger sister of the respondent informing that the respondent had once again attempted to commit suicide and had been taken to the doctor for treatment, though the petitioner did not go and see the respondent thereafter. In August 1995, an endeavour was made by the respondent's family for a reconciliation, but the petitioner was not willing to accept the respondent back as she had not changed in any manner, but, was becoming more and more desperate to harm the petitioner and his family. THE respondent had falsely alleged that monies had been given by the respondent's people for the purchase of a car and a list of jewellery and other articles of nearly Rs.13 lakhs alleged to have been left behind by the respondent in the matrimonial home. In December 1995, the birthday of their son was celebrated by the respondent and on the birthday cake, the son's name was given as Chirag when the suit filed in the High Court was by the minor named as Nikhil which shows the unstable mind of the respondent. THEre are many more instances which will substantiate the fact that owing the immense mental and physical cruelties inflicted on the petitioner by the respondent and it is no longer possible for the petitioner to rejoin and live with the respondent. So, the petitioner seeks for a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against that order, the husband as appellant has preferred both the appeals.