SATYAPAL GOVINDRAM PURSWANI Vs. RADHA SATYAPAL PURSWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the judgment and decree dated 15 -1 -1980, passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 15 -A of 1979.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the husband, -while the defendant is the wife. The plaintiff, in the plaint, has alleged that the parties were married according to Hindu rites at Indore on 14 -12 -1973. After two days of the marriage, the wife and the husband came to Gwalior and started residing at 182, Sindhi Colony, Lashkar. After some time, it is alleged by the plaintiff that he observed a scar on the abdomen of the wife, so he enquired about it. But, the wife did not say anything regarding the matter. On 15 -6 -1975, the plaintiff took his wife to Dr. (Mrs.) Niglye, Nai Sarak, Lashkar and when the lady Doctor observed the scar, she opined that it is due to an operation per -formed on the wife sometime ago. When the plaintiff pressed his wife to tell about, she confessed that there was an operation before her marriage with the plaintiff because there was an abortion and the operation was performed by one Dr. Kukreja, practising at Indore. The fact that there was an abortion before the marriage was never made known to the plaintiff. The wife, to show her repentance at her lapse prior to the marriage, gave a letter to the plaintiff that she is very sorry for the lapse and the lapse should be condoned by him. The plaintiff did not do anything in the said matter on the basis of the admission of the wife.

(3.) THE defendant, in her defence, has admitted the marriage and coming to Gwalior. But, she has denied that there was any scar on her abdomen and that there was any abortion, as alleged. It was further denied that there was any operation performed on her by one Dr. Kukreja of Indore. On the contrary, she has alleged that the plaintiff started beating the defendant and started be -having cruelly with her and was asking for additional amount of dowry. As the amount was not paid the plaintiff still persisted in giving cruel treatment to the defendant. The plaintiff's sister Maya had a major hand in the cruel treatment meted to the defendant. The plaintiff gave a severe beating to the defendant in the month of December and asked the defendant to write a document by which it will be possible to get a divorce, but all these facts were not accepted by the defendant and as such, on 4 -12 -1975, whatever ornaments were on the body of the defendant were forcibly taken out by the husband and she was made to sit in a bus which was to go to Indore and she had the wearing apparel on her body and nothing else. The allegation that on 4 -12 -1975, the defendant left the house of the plaintiff without his consent is false and it was denied. On the contrary, she was forced to leave the house of the husband, as mentioned above. The treatment of the defendant was very much cruel and she had every fear that her life is in danger and because of this fear, she had no other alternative but to stay with the parents. The plaintiff really wanted to marry again and to facilitate second marriage, somehow the plaintiff drove the defendant out of his house. The allegations that the letters were sent by the plaintiff to the defendant are false and are denied. It is denied by the defendant that the plaintiff and his father came Jo take her away with them to Gwalior. When enquired, the defendant came to know that the plaintiff and his father had come to Indore to settle the second marriage with one Jaywanti, whose father's name is Tirathdas and who is a resident of 17, Alapura, Indore and on 6 -5 -1977, at the house of maternal uncle of Jaywanti, she was married to the plaintiff. After .6 -5 -1977, Jaywanti and the plaintiff are residing together as husband and wife. Jaywanti has changed her name from Jaywanti to Meena after the said marriage. Further, the defendant has alleged that Jaywanti alias Meena stayed with the plaintiff in the house of one Sher Singh Raghuvanshi in Tahsil Bareli, District Raisen as husband and wife and similarly they stayed as husband and wife at house No. 17, Alapura, Old Indore, Indore. It was further stated that the defendant is ready and willing to stay with the plaintiff as wife. But, as the plaintiff has married Jaywanti, which marriage is illegal, it will be difficult for the defendant to stay with the plaintiff as a wife as long as Jaywanti is residing with him. If plaintiff stops staying with Jaywanti, the defendant is ready and willing to stay with the plaintiff. The allegation that the defendant has deserted the plaintiff is false and is not admitted. Alleging all these facts, the defendant has stated that the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed and the costs be given.