RAMAKANTABAI Vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-6-1981 passed by the Seventh Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. (H.M. Act) 12-A of 1980.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as follows The appellant is the wife of the respondent. They were married on 27-2-1975at Indore. According to the appellant she lived with the respondent for about 3 years. According to her after the marriage the respondent demanded more money by way of dowery. When the appellant expressed her inability to accede to the respondent's demand, he treated her with cruelty. He also abused her and assaulted her. On 29-7-1977 the respondent turned her out after assaulting her. Thereafter on 31-10-1977, she was again sent back by her parents to the respondent's house on an assurance by the respondent's parents that she would be treated well. However on 2-3-1978 she was again assaulted by the respondent and turned out of his house. Since then she was living in her parents' house. The appellant, therefore, filed the present petition for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The respondent contested the petition. He denied that he or his parents treated the appellant with cruelty or that any of them abused her or ill-treated her. According to him the appellant wanted him to live separately from his parents and that was the root cause of the trouble. The trial Court held that it was not proved that the appellant was treated with cruelty by the respondent and his parents. Consequently, the plaintiffs petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court the wife has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that this appeal has no substance and must be dismissed. As regards the alleged incident dated :11.10.1977 (sic. 29.7.1977) the trial court rightly held that the said incident of cruelty even if proved was condoned by the later act, of the appellant inasmuch as she went back to live with the respondent. The only question before the trial court was whether thereafter the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty and was assaulted on 2.3.1978 as pleaded by her. The appellant examined herself as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 Prakashchandra, P.W. 3 Yogesh Verma, P.W. 4 Gordhanlal and P.W.5 Vimalchand, her father, in support of her case. On appreciation of the testimony of these witnesses the trial court held that the appellant's allegation that she was assaulted on 2-3-1978 and turned out of the house by the respondent is not proved. The trial court rightly disbelieved the witnesses examined by the appellant. According to the appellant the respondent assaulted her on 2-3-1978 as alleged in the petition or on 5-3-78 as deposed by her in the court while P.W. 2 Prakashchandra deposed that the appellant was abused and assaulted on the 'Sankranti' day before two years, that is on 14-1-1979 which is not the case of the appellant. P.W. 4 Gordhanlal was disbelieved on the ground that he was a chance witness. He came to the house of his grandfather-in-law and from there he is said to have witnessed the incident. His testimony is not believable. P W. 3 Yogesh Sharma was examined to prove that immediately after her return from the house of the respondent the appellant narrated the incident to him in the presence of her father Vimal Chand. This witness was also rightly disbelieved by the Court. So far as the appellant herself is concerned her statement also does not inspire confidence. After the appellant came to live with her parents she joined service in the Improvement Trust Board. The respondent had a talk on the telephone with the appellant. The tape recorded version of the conversation between the appellant and the respondent is produced as Ex D/2 The appellant in her testimony admitted that such conversation took place on telephone between her and the respondent. In the said conversation the appellant said to the respondent that as her condition was not acceptable to him he should not try to meet her. The respondent said that for living separately there must be source of income. The appellant replied that she is tired of hearing this. 10 months have lapsed. Now he should not meet her. The source of income will only be made available after her death. From the tenor of this conversation it is clear that the appellant was insisting that the respondent should live separately from his parents. In this conversation no grievance was made by the appellant that either she was ill treated or beaten by the respondent or his parents. In the circumstances on the materials placed on record the trial court was fully justified in holding that the appellant failed to prove that she was treated with cruelty by the respondent.