DHARMINDER KUMAR SOOD Vs. USHAMA SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , CHIEF JUSTICE This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.2001 whereby the first appeal against the order dated 26.8.1998 passed by the Addl. District Judge Ambala dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband, had been dismissed. Brief facts are that marriage between the parties took place on 23.1.1998 and a son was born out of this marriage. The parties, however, could not pull on and had separated. The appellant-husband filed a divorce petition on the ground of desertion alleging that on 12.7.1988, the mother of the wife took her away on the pretext of solemnizing certain customs and thereafter did not allow her to come back, though the husband-appellant tried his level best. It is further alleged that the wife gave birth to a male child on 10.11.1988 and the wife's family had arranged a Hawan ceremony on 20.12.1988 which was attended by the husband-appellant and at that time he again requested his in-laws to send back the respondent-wife, but in vain. In a nut-shell he alleged that the respondent-wife did not join the matrimonial house and deserted the appellant without any cause. The plea of the respondent-wife was that she had been maltreated by the appellant and his parents for dowry. Even before the learned trial Court, the wife had unequivocally stated that she was ready and willing to go back to the appellant provided there was some assurance regarding her security. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the allegations levelled by the husband-petitioner in the petition that the wife was treating him with cruelty, were false and the wiferespondent had succeeded to prove that she had not deserted the petitioner without any cause or excuse. The trial Court also recorded on the basis of the statements of Smt. Ushma and G.I.Sharma that the respondent-wife was interested to settle at her matrimonial home provided the same was in a proper and respectful manner. It was further held by the trial Court on the basis of the statement of S.K.Chopra that the respondent-wife was harassed by the petitioner-husband for having brought less dowry and that the demand of dowry was a cruel act on the part of the husband, therefore, a person who himself was guilty of cruelty could not be given relief in the form of divorce. It was also held by the trial Court that the husband had filed the petition for divorce without any basis because he was not ready to adjust and thus no decree of divorce either on the ground of cruelty or on the ground of desertion could be granted. So far as the question of writing of letters by the wife is concerned, which was taken as a ground for cause of cruelty, the trial Court held that from those letters it could not be presumed that the wife-respondent did any act which amounted to cruelty on her part towards her husband and that she had deserted her husband without any cause or excuse. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the divorce petition. The learned Single Judge also endorsed the decision and that is how the present appeal is before us. Before taking up the appeal, we tried that the matter be amicably resolved either by reconciliation or by separation but no agreement could be arrived at between the parties. Consequently, there is no option but to decide this appeal on merit. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had placed adequate material on record to prove that he had made serious attempts to convince the respondent to go back to the matrimonial home but she had not responded favourably. With regard to the question of cruelty, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the letters written by the respondent-wife which were placed on the record of the trial Court showed that the appellant was mentally tortured which amounted to cruelty. He further argued that the appellant-husband had taken every step to bring back the wife-respondent to her matrimonial home but it was wife-respondent who did not agree to do so. We have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and express our inability to concur with the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant. So far as the plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had tried his level best to bring back the wife-respondent to his matrimonial house, is concerned, the trial Court had specifically noticed that the evidence led proved that a settlement had been arrived at between the parties and they would reside together at Patiala. However, the appellant made no attempts to bring back the respondent-wife with him. This shows that the stand of the appellant that he made all efforts to bring the respondent back to the matrimonial home is, therefore, incorrect. Learned Single Judge, as well as the trial Court have held that it was the appellanthusband who filed a divorce petition without any basis because he was not ready to adjust. The trial Court further held on the basis of the statements of G.I.Sharma as well as S.K.Chopra that the appellant had harassed the wife for bringing less dowry and that the demand of dowry was a cruel act on the part of the husband and, therefore, a person who himself was guilty of cruelty could not be given relief in the form of divorce. We have also perused the letters and are of the view that nothing is contained in those letters which may be taken as a cause for causing cruelty. It also came to our notice that the appellant, while responding to those letters, kept copies of the letters written by him. We fail to understand why copies of such letters were retained when in normal course the husband writing letters to his wife would not retain copies of those letters. The intention of the appellant is writ large from retention of copies of such letters. Learned Single Judge, as well as the trial Court have rightly come to the conclusion that the wife had never deserted her husband and there was no cause of cruelty on her part. Consequently, in these circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.