A P MARRY Vs. K G RAGHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, by the wife against the judgment of the trial Court dismissing her petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty,

(2.) The appellant is a Tamilian Christian while the respondent is a Keralite Brahmin. They were married under the Special Marriage Act at Madras on 1612-1960. Thereafter, they lived together at Bhilai till 16-11-1972 where both are employed in the Bhilai Steel Plant. They have 2 sons and 2 daughters out of their wedlock. On 16-11-1972 the appellant was assaulted by the respondent with a crowbar as a result of which she received injuries with fracture of her right leg. She was admitted in the Main Hospital at Bhilai on that day and she was discharged from there on 23-7-73. After her discharge from the hospital, the appellant is living separately. The case of the appellant is that the parents of the appellant used to come and stay with them which was not liked by the respondent. On that account, serious differences arose between them and there used to be constant quarrels. The respondent is addicted to drinking and the quarrels resulted in unseemly scenes against the prestige of the appellant. The respondent used to assault her frequently since 1963 causing injuries to her. In 1968 the respondent brought one girl Leela, a relation of his aged about 18 years, in their house and she lived there for about six months. Both used to go out and return late in the night. The appellant objected to that and she was assaulted by the respondent. On 16-11-72, the respondent beat her with a crow-bar resulting in fracture to her leg. For all these reasons, it is not possible for the appellant to live with the respondent as his wife. She, therefore, sought divorce under Section 27 (1) (d) of the Act.

(3.) The respondent resisted the petition. He denied that he objected to the stay of the parents of the appellant in their house at Bhilai nor there was any quarrel over their stay. The respondent never ill-treated the appellant nor he beat her since 1963. The respondent submitted that the girl Leela is his real sister's daughter, He brought her to Bhilai in search of employment there as his sister is a widow. He always looked to her as his daughter and there was no question of any illicit relationship. The respondent never went out with her and returned late in the night. The allegations are all false. In fact, the appellant had developed illicit relation sometime in 1971 with G. Shashi, a distant relation of the respondent, with whom she used to go out every evening. Despite the entreaties of the respondent, she refused to pay any heed. The appellant used to come late after her duty hours and she was found loitering with Sashi, During duty hours also she used to go out with him, On 11-11-72 the respondent found the appellant with Sashi together in Model Town. On 12-1172 while the respondent was asking the children to study, the appellant got wild and hit him on his face and broke his spectacles. She then burnt his pants and shirts which were lying in the room and broke his wrist watch. On the evening of 16-11-72 as usual she was going out to meet Sashi. This was protested by the respondent and she became furious and knocked his spectacles by her fist. The respondent, who had recently recovered from illness, fell down on the ground. She then took out a knife and threatened the children that she would cut them to pieces. She hurled a bottle on the respondent. The respondent in order to protect himself took out a stick from the fence. She rushed to the terrace and fell down on the floor and received injuries. She was then shifted to Main Hospital, Bhilai. The respondent tried to meet her there but she refused to see him. The said Sashi was visiting the hospital everyday. The respondent, therefore, sent a registered letter to Sashi's father on 15-12-72 complaining about the illicit connection. Sashi was called by his father by telegram on the pretext that his mother was serious. Sashi went to his village after he had taken Rs. 1,000 from the appellant. The appellant by amendment refuted the allegations about her illicit connection with Sashi.