HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. AMARJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S.28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is directed against the order dt.22-4-83 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Hindu Marriage Case No.3A/82 dismissing the appellants suit for divorce. The appellant and the respondent came of affluent families. The appellant is serving in a Bank. The respondent is daughter of a businessman from Bhawani Mandi (Rajasthan). She is a graduate from Vanasthali near Jaipur. They married on 25-2-79. After the marriage they lived together till Sept., 1979 and thereafter the respondent left for her parental home and joined the appellant in July, 1980 and was blessed with a child. On or about 19-11-80 the respondent left the appellant.

(2.) The appellant filed a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The instances of cruelty attributed against the respondent are : (a) Disobedience, (b) Refusal to cook, (c) Insulting to appellant in presence of others. (d) Ill-treating the appellant including beating. (e) Threatening the appellant to commit suicide. (f) Refusal to render any service and (g) Refusal of cohabitation and (h) not allowing access in the house and keeping the appellant waiting outside the house for hours. All these instances, and circumstances, the appellant alleged lead their matrimonial life unhappy, as these instances according to the appellant, constituted cruelty. The respondent resisted the petitioner's claim and on the other hand pleaded certain facts, which constitute cruelty against her. The appellants examined himself and other witnesses including Surendrapal Singh, Gurubachansingh, Dr. V. P. Mungi, Iqbalsingh and Rajendra Singh Kang. The respondent examined himself and Ramcharansingh, Narendersingh, Dharampalsingh. The appellant's claim for divorce was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the appellant failed to establish cruelty. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Shri Waghmare learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has referred copious passages from the judgments and also the statements of witnesses and contended that cruelty in the instant case has been amply established so as to entitle the appellant to a decree for divorce. He has strongly placed reliance on two stands that the appellant husband was slapped by his wife, the respondent in presence of his friends and according to the learned counsel this fact by itself is sufficient to constitute cruelty. The other fact that the learned counsel has strongly relied upon is to keep the appellant, outside the house making him wait for long periods, on his return from the Bank is extremely humiliating situation which also goes to constitute cruelty entitling the appellant to a decree for divorce. Shri Bhargava learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out two such instances, tracking through the numereous letters, has argued that if there was any cruelty it was not to the husband appellant but to the respondent wife, but at this stage this Court is not considering the grant of any relief to the respondent as she has not approached the Court for any relief. The precise question which falls for consideration is whether on the basis of the facts as proved, the appellant is entitled to any relief, in case 'cruelty' is proved against him. In this connection Shri Waghmare appearing for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court appears to have been inclined in favour of the respondent wife but that is not so, may be a stray sentence here or there in the judgment gives this impression. But the judgment if read as a whole, does not merit such a criticism.