GOPILAL GUPTA Vs. PUSHPA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Decree for divorce has been granted in favour of the respondent Smt. Pushpa Gupta on the ground that she had been treated with cruelty by the husband appellant Gopilal Gupta. Gopilal Gupta has, therefore, cone up in appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant conceded that on evidence as has come on record, it would be difficult to assail the findings of cruelty recorded by the District Court. There are four criminal cases pending against the husband, two before the Sub-Divisioral Magistrate and two before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. They were initiated on the reports of wife when she was repeatedly beaten by the husband. She had received simple and grievous hurts, medically examined and admitted in the hospital for treatment. The challan was later put up after investigation under Sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. There is evidence that the respondent conceived thrice but the conceptions terminated due to ill- treatment of the husband. The respondent affirmed that she was being ill-treated because she was unwilling to part with her salary which she earned as an Upper Division Clerk nor was she willing to give up service. She said that her parents could not give the dowry of Rs. 20,000.00 demanded by the husband and he started misbehaving. There are letters on record written by the appellant Gopilal imputing unchastity to his wife. He suspected that the lady had illict relations with her brother-in-law who was instigating her to separate from the husband who was a poor teacher. And finally, there are documents to show that Gopilal was returned the ornaments and they had mutually agreed for a divorce. A petition was prepared for being filed before the District Court which was ultimately not filed.

(3.) The grievance of the learned counsel before this Court is that the appellant Gopilal had been proceeded against ex-parte, his application for setting aside the ex parte order was rejected and though he was permitted Ito take part in further proceedings, inasmuch as he was allowed to cross- examine the petitioner and her witness, he was not permitted to give evidence in rebuttal. He was thus seriously prejudiced in the trial. The second grievance is that the Court in the first instance ought to have granted a decree for judicial separation under Sec. 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, so that an attempt at reconciliation could be made and either party could, on changed circumstances, apply for the decree being rescinded.