PARKASH KAUR Vs. HAR BHAJAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Parkash Kaur has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and decree dated 3-11-1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the petition of the respondent-husband for grant of divorce has been allowed and the marriage between them has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.

(2.) The facts of the case are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16-6-1974 at village Kotla, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, according to Hindu religious rites. After marriage the parties lived as husband and wife at village Nussi, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, up to 2-11-1987. No child was born out of the wedlock. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the wife had treated him with utmost cruelty, as a result of which the petitioner (now respondent) has suffered immense mental and physical torture. He thus had a reasonable belief that it would be injurious and harmful for him to live with his wife. The respondent set out the details of the cruelty meted out to him. He has stated that at the time of marriage, he was studying in B.A. IInd and the appellant after staying for fifteen days went back to her parental house and lived there for a period of one and half years. She did not resume cohabitation and in fact even during the initial period of 15 days, there has been no cohabitation between the parties. She did not even allow the respondent to touch her much less allowing the consummation of marriage. Besides, she did not talk properly with the respondent and his other family members. On account of this behaviour, the respondent suffered great mental torture. It was after convening a Panchayat that the appellant returned to her matrimonial home. However, even then her behaviour was rude, insulting and aggressive in nature. She remained at the matrimonial home for a period of one year and during this period she quarrelled with the mother of the respondent and used to abuse her in dirty language. The respondent tolerated the same with the hope that she may improve but without any result. The appellant then again left for her parental house against the wishes of the respondent and remained there for a period of one and half years. In order to keep the marriage intact, the respondent again brought her back to the house by convening a Panchayat. The appellant instead of appreciating the love and affection, took it as a weakness and immediately after resuming cohabitation, she started misbehaving. Whenever the respondent asked his wife to behave better and discharge the household work, she created a row in the house and would attract the neighbours and in their presence abused the respondent and his mother. Lastly, about six and half months earlier to the filing of the petition, the appellant after creating trouble in the house threatened the respondent that she would commit suicide by consuming dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (for short D.D.T.). The respondent then approached the Village Panchayat and apprised them of her misbehaviour. The Panchayat members of village Nussi came to the house of the respondent and after verifying the fact went to the Panchayat of village Kotla and apprised them of the appellant's misbehaviour and on the third day, the appellant was taken away by her brother Narain Dass and since then she has been living with her parents. The respondent also made allegations against his wife of being inaccessible and refusing to have sex on account of which they could not have a child. This also, it is said amounted to cruelty towards him. Hence the petition for divorce.

(3.) The appellant filed her written statement in which the factum of marriage and the place of residence before and after marriage and her living at her matrimonial house up to 2-11-1987 were admitted. It is also admitted that at the time of marriage, the respondent was studying in B.A. However, the other allegations, as made by the respondent in his petition before the learned trial Court, have been denied. It is stated that the version given by the respondent was wrong, false and concocted and a clever design to make a ground of cruelty. She was married to the respondent more than 14 years back and during this period, she had conducted herself like a dutiful wife and has been treating the respondent, his mother and relations with utmost love, respect and regards, although they had been treating her with scant regard. It has been submitted that the parties were engaged two years earlier to their marriage. Her father was financially well of but the respondent's family was in less financial circumstances. Her father had been helping the respondent from time to time. It is stated that although the parties are "Adharmies" but her father was doing the lucrative business of diesel etc. and was in a position to help the respondent. Her father performed the marriage by spending a lot and gave very good dowry. Her father also helped the respondent in getting service in the Bank. The respondent got services in the Bank after 4/5 years of the marriage and during this period, it was her father who had been virtually supporting the respondent's family. It is after the respondent joined Bank service that the status of the family became better. With a view to help the respondent and his family, appellant's father also sent building material for building a new house and they built a new house on a piece of land, they already had. Her father also gave the respondent a good milch buffalo as there was no milch cattle in the family of the respondent. It is the case of the appellant that there was no estrangement and till 1985, the married life of the parties was happy and smooth. During the last three years, the behaviour of respondent and his family had been aggressive and oppressive. For about the first half of this period i.e. one and half years, there were quarrels in the family. The respondent started saying that the appellant was not beautiful and was not educated and that she did not conceive and was barren. Her mother-in-law also joined the respondent. They went to the extent of saying that the appellant be sent to her parents place and that the respondent would be remarried and she would be paid maintenance. The respondent and his mother compelled the appellant to do manual labour for others and work as a farm labourer. She did it although she was ashamed of it as the women folk used to remark that why should she do such odd jobs when her husband was a respectable educated Bank employee getting handsome pay. About two years earlier to the filing of the written statement, she was given katcha kotha (mud house) to live separate, although it lasted only for 5/6 days. Whenever there was any quarrel in the family, the father and the brothers of the appellant used to go to the respondent's house and pacify the parties. For the last one and half years, the appellant was mal-treated and she was turned out of the matrimonial home and was constrained to take refuge at her parents place. Letters were sent to the respondent by her father but he did not bother. The Sarpanch of village Kotla, who happened to know the respondent wrote a letter so that he may take the appellant to the matrimonial home. This was about 5/6 months after she had been turned out. In response to this letter, the uncle of the respondent namely Shanker and Surjan the mediator to the marriage between the parties accompanied by other persons came to see Ram Kishan, Sarpanch of village Kotla. Thereafter all of them went to the house of the appellant's father and it was agreed that the respondent would come and take her with him to the matrimonial home. A week thereafter, the respondent took the appellant with him. This was about one year back. However, after 5/6 months, she was again forsaken. With the object of getting rid of the appellant, the respondent was trying to find excuses. The respondent enacted a "suicide drama". It has been alleged that when the appellant was suffering from fever, the respondent gave her some liquid in a tumbler telling her to be medicine. The moment the appellant tried to drink it, the respondent snatched the glass from her hand, started shouting and telling the people that she was going to take poison with the intention to commit suicide, so as to involve the respondent and his family. In fact this was a clever design and manipulation of the respondent to create public opinion in his village. It is on the next day of this incident, the respondent, his uncle namely Shanker came to Ram Kishan, Sarpanch of village Kotla and told him about the "suicide attempt". They went to the house of the appellant's father and it was decided that after a couple of days the Sarpanch, the appellant's father and relations would go to the house of the respondent and verify the facts. Before, this could be done, on the following day, the respondent along with his uncle Shankar took the appellant with them telling her that they were going to her parents place and they left her stranded at village Sham Chaurasi, from where she had to walk the distance to village Kotla in shabby clothes. Thereafter, despite efforts of her father and the other respectables, the respondent refused to take the appellant back to the matrimonial home. The other averments, as made, have also been denied. It is also denied that the respondent had no access to her and that he had been having sexual intercourse with her. However, child having not been born was a matter of chance. She stated that the respondent should have consulted a Doctor and got himself and the appellant medically examined.