BHARTI DEVI Vs. SHEONARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-husband has succeeded in the lower Court in obtaining a decree for divorce against the appellant-wife on the ground that he was treated by his wife with cruelty. Wife has now come up in appeal under Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against that decree.

(2.) The marriage between the parties was performed in April, 1975. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant expressed that the marriage was solemnised much against her wishes and that she was not happy with that marriage she has her own ways of life which was not palatable to the respondent, his parents and other members of the family. There were frequent quarrels and the appellant did not even hesitate to abuse them. She would not undertake any domestic functions, would not cook meals and would disobey the respondent and his parents at every step. She attempted to commit suicide only with a view to lend the respondent, his father and other family members into trouble. During the trial, it was also stated that the appellant severely beat respondent's sister-in-law (elder brother's wife). It was therefore, pleaded the appellant was guilty of cruelty and, therefore, decree of divorce was claimed. The appellant in her turn denied all these allegations and pleaded that the boot is on the other leg. According to her, she was tortured at the hands of the respondent and his other family members and was treated more or less like a slave. Her wishes were never respected. She was not even given cloth and food and used to be severely beaten. He was P 6 compelled to commit suicide and the father of the respondent forced her way on the railway line near Madan Mahal Station, Jabalpur and it was only with the help of some railway employees that her life could be saved. Oral evidence was led and documents, including two letters (Exs. 16 & V7) written by the appellant to the respondent during the course of the proceedings before the lower court, were also filed. The lower Court held cruelty by the appellant proved and granted decree of divorce.

(3.) The first contention in support of the appeal had been that out of the two specific acts of cruelty sought to be established at the stage of trial one namely the assault by her on the sister-in-law of the respondent, was not pleaded therefore, and, that part of the evidence must be ignored. In this the learned counsel for the appellant seems to be right. It is now well settled that specific acts of cruelty must be pleaded to enable the opposite party to meet those allegations and fake and general complaint will not help any party. As the assault on respondent's sister-in-law was not specifically pleaded, any evidence led on this issue will have to be ignored.