MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. ANEETA PREET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-appellant and the petitioner-respondent got married on November 26, 1978 in pursuant to and in accordance with Sikh rites by way of performance of Anand Karaj eremony at Ludhiana. The marriage was duly consummated and from this wedlock two children were born i.e. eldest is the daughter named as Mansharan Kaur Khamba who was born on March 29, 1981 at Ludhiana and the second child, a son named as Gur Simranjit Singh Khamba, born on February 25, 1986 at Delhi. Petition for seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce had been filed by the wife i.e. petitioner-respondent on March 2, 1993. The plea taken is that she has been subjected to mental as well as physical cruelty by the husband. In respect thereof the pleadings have been set out, the said petition has been contested by the husband and a reply to the pleadings has been submitted.

(2.) THE allegations are that immediately after the marriage, the parents of the respondent including his sisters started taunting the petitioner for not having brought a car in the dowry and that the husband wanted a slim and prettier girl and that the respondent-appellant had agreed to get married to the petitioner-respondent because of pressure put by the mother of the respondent-appellant with a hope that they would at least get a car in the dowry. It is further alleged that the petitioner-respondent had not been taken for honeymoon trip after their marriage because the husband was completely under the control of his father and that he did not have the courage to ask his father for permission to go on a holiday after marriage. It is alleged that the father of the petitioner-respondent made arrangements for their visit to Kashmir but they stayed only for a period of four days as the respondent-appellant had not taken the permission from his parents for visiting Kashmir and accordingly the couple came back to Delhi. It is further alleged that the petitioner-respondent was made to do all the household work and also treated very shabbily and that she was not allowed to make a telephone call to her relations, who were residing at Delhi, leave apart permission to visit them. It is also alleged that whenever any of her relations came to see her, they were always made uncomfortable and were made to feel unwelcomed guests. Resultantly, the petitioner-respondent was subjected to a lot of psychological pressure. On the sad occasion of death of her grandfather, she had been allowed to go to Ludhiana after great persuasion and similarly at the time of marriage of one of her cousin sisters, which was performed in the year 1980, the petitioner-respondent was allowed to attend the marriage after the parents of the petitioner-respondent had come to get her from Delhi in car. However, she had been given two sets and bangles to be worn in the aforesaid marriage, which in fact were given by her parents for wearing in the marriages. None of the relations of the respondent-appellant and or his friends ever came to attend the marriage despite the fact that they had been invited personally. The petitioner-respondent was pRegulation nt at that time and that the pRegulation ncy was of four and a half months but upon medical check up at Ludhiana, she was advised rest and was not permitted to travel and resultantly she could not go back to Delhi till the date of delivery. It is in the year 1981, marriage of the sister of the husband was to be performed and the petitioner-respondent was asked to come to Delhi by train alone as the husband had no time to fetch her from Ludhiana, the petitioner-respondent was pRegulation nt by eight months and that the doctors did not permit her to travel to Delhi, she could not attend the marriage. However, the parents of the petitioner-respondent did attend the marriage but they were treated in a very rude manner which was rather insulting. The petitioner-respondent gave birth to female child but strange enough, neither the respondent-appellant nor any one from his family came to see the child what to talk of sending gifts and other articles required by a child at that time. It is at that time the mind was disclosed by the respondent-appellant and their family that they were not interested in taking back the petitioner-respondent to Delhi.

(3.) HOWEVER , with the indulgence of some of the relatives and friends a meeting was arranged for reconciliating the marriage and for clarifying the doubts in the minds of the family of the respondent-appellant and for streamlining the manner in which the petitioner-respondent would be accepted to stay at the house of the respondent-appellant. In the said meeting, it had been agreed that an independent family set for the residence of the petitioner-respondent and respondent-appellant alongwith the child shall be provided. It is alleged that for furnishing the said premises, father of the petitioner-respondent provided funds but no independent accommodation was constructed and the amount so received for furnishing was quietly pocketed by respondent-appellant. It is alleged that only one room was built and the funds which were provided for furnishing the set were not even given to the petitioner-respondent to be spent for furnishings. The petitioner-respondent made an effort to end the dispute and settle the matter, resultantly came to Delhi alongwith the child and accompanied by Shri Inderjit Singh Pahwa, a relation and friend. The child was more than one and a half years old at that time. The respondent-appellant saw the child for the first time in November 1982 when she was brought to Delhi. It is alleged that the jewellery which was handed over to the petitioner-respondent for attending the marriage of her cousin was returned to the respondent-appellant by her father in the presence of Mr. I.S. Pahwa. The matter did not rest here despite the fact that she had taken steps to end the dispute by coming back to matrimonial home but she was again made to hear that she has given birth to a female child and that she does not look after the house nor she is able to look after the child. It is alleged that the petitioner was also falsely charged of having lost one heavy three-string gold Haar. However, in December, 1982, the petitioner-respondent was to attend the marriage of her another cousin sister but it was not so easy getting the permission but of course no jewellery was allowed to be worn. When the she came back from the marriage, she found that the elder sister of respondent-appellant, who was pRegulation nt, had also come to her parental home and was to reside there till the delivery of the child. The mother-in-law of the petitioner-respondent was required to undergo some kind of surgery probably for removal of stones from the gall bladder. Resultantly, the petitioner- respondent was subjected to the entire responsibility and was required to look after everybody without any help from any quarters. She was maltreated beyond any comprehension by any and every person for any mistake which would occur unintentionally and also wherever she was little late in compliance of the demands of her sister-in-law and mother-in-law. It is on May 3, 1984, the petitioner-respondent had to run from the house for her safety to the house of her cousin. It is alleged that all misgivings had been fed into the mind of the respondent-appellant by the mother-in-law and he was being prepared and educated to give beatings to the petitioner-respondent.