INDERJIT MEHTA Vs. PARVEEN MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband brought a petition for seeking a decree of divorce against the wife on the ground of desertion and cruelty in May, 1996. After a hot contest, the petition was dismissed on 14.12.1998 by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh. The husband has filed the present appeal.

(2.) THE husband in this case is a Judicial Officer in the State of Haryana and is a member of Haryana Superior Judicial Service at present. The respondent- wife belongs to Doraha, a Sub Division in district Ludhiana. The parties were allegedly married on 6.12.1985 at Doraha according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child has been born out of this wed-lock. The parties lived together till 28.4.1986 and thereafter never lived together. The allegations of the husband had been that right from the first day of the marriage, he sensed something abnormal in the wife and was unable to consummate the marriage as the respondent-wife could not possibly cooperate because of something lacking in her health for a cohabitation and the marriage virtually remained non-existent. One day, the respondent told the appellant-husband that she was suffering from protracted ailment and her ailment was concealed by her parents from him for which the appellant was shocked but still the appellant claimed that he assured the respondent that he would provide her the best available medical treatment. The respondent herself allegedly told the appellant that she was getting treatment from one vaid Amar Nath Shastri of Chandigarh and it was on 10.12.1985 that the appellant took her to the said Vaid at Chandigarh. The Vaid told the appellant that respondent's father was his close friend and he was already seized of the health problem of the respondent and he gave some medicines, since he was treating her already. After consulting Vaid Amar Nath Shastri, they returned to Yamuna Nagar where the parents of the appellant were living. However, there were no signs of improvement in her health. The husband left for Panipat where he was posted and used to visit Yamuna Nagar on week ends. The husband wanted to take the respondent to Panipat at the place of his posting in the middle of January, 1986 and they actually started living at Panipat and continued with the medicines. In the month of February, 1986, the wife agreed to be examined by Dr. B.N. Nagpal of Civil Hospital, Panipat and was advised by the doctor for a thorough check up and diagnosis but the respondent did not cooperate which was shocking to the appellant. The respondent ultimately told that she was not interested in any medical treatment.

(3.) THE appellant claimed that during her stay at Panipat when Surinder Singh Rao and Virender Jain his friends visited his place, the respondent refused to prepare tea and started misbehaving in their presence. The respondent started taunting, threatening and using abusive language against the appellant and claimed that he did not have a proper living standard and the appellant could not bear this insult and embarrassment. The parties visited Doraha on 12.4.1986. Parents of the respondent agreed that the respondent would be sent to Panipat after she improved her health. The respondent along with her brother's wife visited Yamuna Nagar and ultimately on 28.4.1986 the brother and Bhabi of the respondent came and took her. So the appellant-husband brought a petition on the grounds that when the appellant's side had seen the girl (respondent) for the first time they had questioned the girl's parents as to why she was so thin and slim ? They were told that she was undergoing dieting and, therefore, they concealed the factum of illness of the respondent. After the appellant discovered that she was unable to perform the sexual intercourse and cohabit, the respondent refused to tell the ailment and ultimately backed out from being treated by her own family Vaid as well as from Dr. Nagpal. These acts of the respondent acted as a matter of great cruelty in house-hold and domestic matters. She also misbehaved with him and caught his collar of the shirt at the time of Shri S.K. Jain, Legal Remembrancer Haryana (later on a Judge of this Court) in whose house a compromise was being effected. Again she took a large number of persons to the Court of the appellant at Kaithal on 30.7.1986 and attacked his house and a report to that effect was despatched to the superior judicial officer of the appellant. Shri S.P. Singh, PW.8 an Additional District Judge, Kaithal also informed about the said violent attack of the companions of the respondent. Since she was a physical wreck and skeleton and could not cooperate in the sexual intercourse also acted as an act of cruelty. These all acts and conduct allegedly acted as a matter of cruelty to the appellant, as asserted.