NARESH PUROHIT Vs. P K SHOBHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri B.I. Mehta submitted that the learned trial Judge has committed an error of law in not accepting the evidence of the petitioner which has been totally unchallenged. He further pointed-out that the respondent even did not bother to challenge the averments made by the appellant in the matrimonial petition. He submitted that the reasons given by the trial Judge for dismissing the petition of the appellant praying for decree of divorce are not consistent with the evidence on record and they are erroneous. He further submitted that on account of wrong approach, the learned Judge landed in the error of dismissing the petition of the appellant for getting divorce against the respondent - Shobhana. For substantiating his contention Shri Mehta placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in, 1994 SCC 337 (AIR 1994 SC 710) (V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) By placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court (supra) he submitted that present one is a case of broken marriage and therefore, the spouses can not be expected to reside together in a matrimonial wedlock. In support of his submissions, Shri Mehta produced the certified copy of the matrimonial petition filed by the respondent Dr. P.K. Shobhana in Coimbatore family Court in which she prayed for decree of divorce against the present appellant dissolving their marriage. By pointing-out this, he submitted that the marriage is totally broken and therefore the only thing which can be done would be passing a decree for divorce dissolving their marriage.

(2.) Few facts need to be stated for unfolding the matrimonial disharmony between the spouses. Both, the appellant and the respondent were married on 15-2-1994 at Bhilai and thereafter they resided at Ujjain as husband and wife. It has been alleged by the appellant in the matrimonial petition that the wife Shobhna did not behave with him properly and by her cruel behaviour, he got frustrated, which was unbearable. He has quoted one instance in which respondent Shobhana attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her body but fortunately she could not do anything on account of the presence of guards of Indorama Synthetics publicLimited He also pointed-out that respondent-Shobhana gave cruel treatment to his parents also which resulted in the complaint with the police lodged by his father by quoting number of instances and the way in which respondent behaved cruelly with him, appellant prayed that it was not possible for him and the respondent Dr. Shobhana, to cohabit as husband and wife in the matrimonial home. Thus, he prayed for decree of divorce in his favour and against the respondent Shobhana by preferring matrimonial petition in the District Court, Ujjain. Learned Additional District Judge who tried the said matrimonial petition after recording the evidence of appellant Naresh Purohit concluded that he did not prove that the respondent behaved with him in such a cruel way which was sufficient enough to pass the decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage.

(3.) In the matrimonial petition the appellant has reiterated his averments describing the cruelty offered to him by the respondent. The said petition has been verified by him. Therefore, the averments made in the said petition will have to be referred to as the evidence in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (here-in-after referred to as Act, for convenience). Summons were issued by the trial Court to respondent Shobhana. She did not appear in the Court and did not submit her written statement for the purpose of contradicting his allegations made against her by appellant Naresh Purohit. Therefore, this attitude of respondent will have to be given due weightage for the purpose of deciding whether appellant had proved his case for the purpose of getting the decree of divorce dissolving the marriage with Shobhana-the respondent. In his evidence appellant has stated that after 23-8-1995 respondent insulted his parents as his father did not pay her a sum of Rs. 100000/- for starting a clinic at Ujjain. He further submitted that in the month of May, 95 when he was ailing by getting infected by Hepatitis, respondent did not behave properly with him. Such behaviour was again repeated when he again fell ill by catching jaundice in the month of Nov. 95. Learned trial Judge has not given due importance to this aspect of the matter. Had the wife of the appellant been someone else other than the persons of medical field petitioner would not have expected this thing. Perhaps this aspect might not have acquired importance. But she happens to be a woman from medical field and was holding good qualification. When that was so, it was totally improper for her that she did not give proper attention to his ailment. Lack of attentiveness in that context at that time would be something which would be coming in the gamut of cruelty. Furthermore, the appellant has quoted an instance in statement on oath that respondent Shobhana attempted to pour kerosene on her body and set her to fire. The learned trial Judge also did not give due importance to this aspect of the matter. Had the guards not intervened by their presence, respondent might have committed suicide and that might have caught the appellant in other legal complications and that too in the nature of prosecution. Therefore, the attempt on the part of wife to go for committing suicide will have to be seen in proper perspective. Apart from this, it is the evidence of appellant Naresh Purohit that when respondent Shobhana was residing with him as wife, she used to quarrel constantly. Constant quarrels also assume "cruelty."