MADHUBALA VIVEK JAIN Vs. VIVEK CHANDANMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is challenging the judgment and order dated 31st May, 1993 passed by the Family Court, Pune in P.A. No.665 of 1990 by which the Petition filed by the Respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (hereafter referred to as Hindu Marriage Act) came to be granted and the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was dissolved. The Respondent was also ordered to pay Rs.300/- per month to the Appellant and Rs.200/- per month for each of the two daughters Aditi and Isha from the date of 31st May, 1993.

(2.) A few facts giving rise to the Petition are as follows :- The Appellant and the Respondent got married on 19th May,1983 as per Hindu rites. The marriage took place at Pune. The Respondent is a businessman dealing in readymade garments and is also having nursery shop. The Appellant-wife is also from Pune. The parents of the Appellant stayed at 4 to 5 kms. away from the residence of the Respondent. The father of the Appellant is also a businessman. The first daughter by name Aditi was born on 28.7.1985. The second daughter by name Isha was born on 13.9.1987. The Appellant left the matrimonial house on 17.12.1989 and since then she is staying with her parents. This petition came to be filed on 18.11.1990 by the Respondent alleging commission of mental and physical cruelty by the Appellant. The Appellant filed Written Statement on 24.1.1991. The gist of the incidents alleged as indicating commission of mental and physical cruelty on the part of the Appellant is as follows :- (i) On the very first night of the marriage the Appellant told the Respondent that his mother is Didpanch (overwise). (ii) She abused the Respondent as Chakka or Hijada and a beggar. The Respondent abused his mother as Kutri (bitch), Nalayak (useless). She abused his father as kutra (dog) and Nalayak (useless). He further stated that she alleged this because her parents were financially well off while the Respondent was poor. Therefore, she became bold enough to insult them in this manner. (iii) She was taking contraceptive pills without permission of the Respondent. She was found in 1984 using such pills. (iv) At the time of first pregnancy, she went to her parents without anybody's consent or performing the customary ceremonies. (v) In September 1984, she urged the Respondent that they should visit her aunt in Madras. When the Respondent denied, she got angry, quarrelled with him and gave threat to get him arrested by the Police. (vi) She shaved off hair of the first daughter without the consent of the Respondent and when enquired she got annoyed and threw the child from the bed and bit his finger. Due to the same, he became unconscious and the doctor was required to be called for treatment. (vii) In November 1986, she raised quarrels and pulled his hair and she insulted his parents. This was for no reason. (viii) At the time of obituary of her relative i.e. in the beginning of 1987, her father and mother went to the house of one Meghraj. Her father abused and insulted the mother of the Respondent without any reason. (ix) On 17th December 1989, at the time of the breakfast, she threw matress on the person of the Respondent. When the Respondent enquired about the reason, she gave threats to the Respondent and his parents that she would get them arrested. All of a sudden, she left the house with daughter Aditi along with a suit case. She filed a Criminal Case with the Police under Sections 323 and Section 498 of I.P.C. The Respondent and his parents were called by the Police. The Appellant tendered apology to the Respondent and his parents and stated that she had given a false complaint and thereafter she went to her parents' place deserting the Respondent. The Police prosecuted the Respondent, his parents and two brothers in Criminal Case No.320 of 1990. This was completely bogus and false case launched and this has caused immense mental cruelty to the Respondent. (x) On 2.11.1990, the Appellant went to the house of the Respondent. She threatened the Respondent and his mother that she would commit suicide and name them. With that intention, she took a jar containing kerosene and was about to sprinkle it on her body, the Respondent saved this. Therefore, he was required to approach the Police on 6-11-1990. (xi) In addition, in the evidence, the Respondent relied upon the interview which the Appellant gave to the newspaper by name Aajka Anand which came to be published on 25.10.1991. According to the Respondent, the said interview contained various false statements and they were defamatory and defamed his family.

(3.) AS far as the interview published in the newspaper Aajka Anand dated 25.10.1991 is concerned, she stated that she had not gone to the press. She had only pointed out the harassment suffered by her and the plight of her children in the said interview. She denied that she defamed the Respondent and his family or intended to do so.