INDIRA GANGELE Vs. SHAILENDRA KUMAR GANGELE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal under S. 28 of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgement and decree of divorce passed by Shri Vinod Saxena, District Judge, Satna on 25-7-1991 in Civil Suit No. 36-A/1986 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The appellant challenges legality of the same and prays for setting aside the decree and dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent.

(2.) There appears to be no dispute that the parties were married on 29-1-1984 in accordance with Hindu Law and thereafter lived at Raipur and Satna for some time. The respondent/husband in his application before the trial Court submitted that after their marriage on 29-1-1984, the parties lived at Satna for few days. Both of them thereafter went to Raipur together, where the appellant was left alone for some time with the respondent's parents. The parties again went on holiday to Puri. Thereafter, the appellant went back to her parents' home at Faizabad and did not return either to Raipur or Satna to live with the respondent. It was also submitted that the respondent's sister was to be married on 9-4-1984 and, therefore, he requested the appellant to come to Raipur to join him in the marriage, but she did not do so. It was further alleged that on 19-7-1984, the respondent, in the company of his mother and grandmother, went to the appellant's house to bring her back to Satna. She accompanied him to Satna, after a great deal of persuation. After staying about 12 days at Satna, she went back to her parents on the pretext that her brother was coming from U.S.A. She had thereafter never returned. The respondent wrote several letters to the appellant wife to persuade her to come back but without any effect. Thereafter, the appellant wrote a letter on 29-10-1984 and accused respondent's mother and grandmother of hatching a conspiracy to burn her alive. Since the appellant had designated respondent's mother and grandmother as devil incarnate by making false allegation, she was accused of cruelty. Since she had refused to come back to Satna to live with him, the appellant was also accused of desertion. The appellant, in her written statement, admitted that she was married and lived at Satna and Raipur, but denied that she had done anything, which may amount to cruelty. She, on the contrary, alleged that she had been ill-treated by the mother-in-law and grand-mother-in-law, on her first visit to Raipur, because she had not brought enough dowry. She offered to come back unconditionally and live with the respondent. The learned District Judge, on consideration of evidence adduced by the parties, held that the appellant was guilty of cruelty and also desertion and, therefore, passed the impugned judgement and decree.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even if everything contained in the plaint is accepted as true, it would not amount to cruelty or desertion, as understood in law. It is further submitted that the letter (Ex. P/B) is said to be containing allegation amounting to cruelty, but that allegation is neither cruelty nor it shows anything intentionally done by the appellant. The letter, if at all, contains an awful tale of the appellant's exploitation. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the allegation regarding demand of Rs. 10,000/- as dowry made by the appellant in her statement, does not find place in the written statement and hence it is apparent that it was a false statement intended to cause strain to the respondent. This also shows that the appellant was used of making false statement. It is, therefore, submitted that the judgement was just and proper and needs no interference, by this Court.