SUSHILA CHAWALIYA Vs. BHARORAO CHAWALIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent-husband and against the appellant-wife on a finding that the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty.

(2.) The parties were married in the year 1952 according to Vedic rites. As a result of this wedlock, they had 4 children, the eldest being a daughter who is now married. Out of the other three children, two are grown up sons, while the third is a daughter aged about 8 years. In the year 1976 the respondent filed a similar petition seeking dissolution of marriage, but the parties reconciled and the petition was withdrawn. Things, however, could not improve much and the respondent filed another petition on 18-6-1980 again for the similar relief of dissolution of marriage. The appellant wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and by the impugned judgment that petition has been dismissed and there is no appeal against it. The respondent sought a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground that his wife, the appellant was mentally imbalanced, her behaviour was abnormal, she often used to quarrel with him, would beat him and the children, would not give him food, would publicly hurl abuses and stones at him and would even come to the shop where the respondent was employed and there too would abuse him and throw shoes and stones at him. The allegation is that ultimately, he was turned out of the house alongwith the children and is now living separate from her. It has also been mentioned that she would entertain persons of doubtful character, but this allegation does not seem to have been prosecuted with any seriousness.

(3.) In answer the appellant-wife has put blame upon the respondent. According to her, it is the respondent who ill-treated her because she would not approve of his association with notorious persons. She however, expressed that for the sake of children she bore all the torture and was still eager to live with the family as a dutiful wife. She emphatically denied the allegation made against her that she ever refused cohabitation. Instead, she says that she always succumbed to any desire of the respondent.