SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. ARJAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Santosh Kumari and Arjan Dass got married on 2nd of July, 1971 at Bhatinda. The marriage party returned to Sirsa where it arrived by 8 O'clock next morning. On 17th of March, 1972, a daughter was born. The husband was working as a Telephone Operator at Fatehabad. The wife filed a petition under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance for herself and the minor daughter which application was opposed by the husband. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition on 5th of October, 1975, copy of judgment being Exhibit R-6, and allowed Rs. 70 per month to the wife and Rs. 50 per month to the child. The wife had pleaded that she remained at Sirsa up to November, 1971, and the husband used to come for five to seven days in a month to Sirsa and during his absence she was maltreated by her in-laws. Ultimately, she was turned out of the house in a pregnant condition and thereafter she started living at Bhatinda in her parents' house where she gave birth to a daughter. In that case, plea taken by the husband was that the wife was pregnant at the time of marriage and, therefore, he was not willing to live with her and they had mutually agreed not to live as husband and wife. In a very detailed judgment running into ten pages, the learned Magistrate rejected the pleas set up by husband and accepted the pleas of the wife that she and the child were not being maintained, to which they were entitled in law. Against the aforesaid order, the husband went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge who remanded the matter for fresh decision and to award maintenance after keeping in view the income of the wife because, in the meantime, the wife had taken up job as a teacher. The learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 14th of April, 1976, found that the expenditure of the wife could not be more than Rs. 200 per month and since she was getting Rs. 265 as salary, therefore, she was not entitled to any maintenance. However, Rs. 80 were allowed for the minor child. Copy of this order is Exhibit R-7.

(2.) The husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, during the year 1976 on the sole ground that the wife had deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The wife denied the allegation of desertion. The learned District Judge by judgment dated l8th October 1976, copy Exhibit R-5, came to the conclusion that the husband failed to prove that the wife had deserted him. On the other hand, he came to the conclusion that she throughout was wanting to come back and even convened Panchayat to request the husband to take her along with him which fact was admitted by the husband. Therefore, the husband's petition was dismissed. In this petition for divorce, the husband neither pleaded that she was pregnant at the time of marriage or that she was living adulterous life. However, in the statement made before the Court. He did state that he had doubts about his wife having illicit connections with Sita Ram who was her sister's husband and that is why he never wanted to bring her back. After two years and four months of the dismissal of the aforesaid petition for divorce, the present petition was filed by the husband for divorce on 16th February, 1979, in which he pleaded that he discovered on the very fast night that wife was pregnant and, therefore, they never cohabited as husband and wife and the daughter born on 17th March, 1972 was not his child. However, he took up three grounds for divorce :-

(3.) The wife contested the petition. and denied all the allegations and pleaded that they had been living as husband and wife at Sirsa and Fatehabad and had sexual intercourse with him, out of which conjugal relationship daughter was born after 259 days of marriage. She pleaded that the husband had set up a false plea in proceedings under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the wife had admitted before him in train on way from Bhatinda to Sirsa soon after wedding when the marriage party was coming from Bhatinda to Sirsa, that she was already pregnant. She pleaded that if this plea had been correct, then the husband would not have arranged for taking of photographs at Sirsa on the following day after arrival of the marriage party, along with the members of his family. The husband was required to admit or deny those photographs. In short her case was that all the allegations levelled against her were false and incorrect and that in fact it was the husband and his family who were guilty of maltreating her.