RAJINDER KUMARI Vs. PADAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The advice in melody sung by an American bard last century in the wild West is even today relevant for husbands and can perhaps serve as a pointer in this matrimonial dispute: "Be to her faults a little blind. And be to her virtues very kind." The wheels of marriage have to keep running and need oiling if as an institution it has to survive. Herein this Court is confronted with a dispute which is more a case of inflation of the ego rather than the normal gurgle of confluence of two streams. The wise aptly say : 'Love is selflessness' and conversely 'Self is lovelessness'. Each husband and wife, herein, having at one time or the other asserted his or herself have marred their chances of reconciliation; though the marriage is not very old and there exists a binding factor in the shape of a four year old good-looking son. The husband successfully claimed divorce from his wife on the basis of desertion and cruelty from the first matrimonial Court The wife clamouring for the maintenance of her marital status is in this Court being at pains to justify her being away from her husband and to refute and mollify the suggested acts or instances of cruelty.

(2.) On broad outlines, the parties do not differ but, as is normal, on details they have extremely divergent versions. To begin with, let the admitted facts be taken note of. Before marriage Padam Parkash, the husband, was a J. B. T. teacher employed in the State of Punjab. His parental family lived in the border town of Sri Ganganagar in Rajasthan. Rajinder Kumari, the wife, was a B.Ed, teacher employed in the State of Punjab. Her parental family was living at Abohar, another border town, but in the State of Punjab. Both the towns are about 30 miles apart Undisputably, the husband was less qualified, and a low graded teacher fetching a lesser sum as salary. On the other hand, the wife was better qualified, and better graded fetching comparatively a larger salary. They were married at Abohar on 5-3-1978. As was expected, they arranged their affairs in such a way so as to keep their marital home at Sri Ganganagar in the parental house of the husband. They managed their postings also in such a way so as to be near Sri Ganganagar; the wife getting posting at village Kaller Khera and the husband at village Gumjal, both in Punjab State but situated on the Sri Ganganagar-Abohar road. Availing bus services, they attended to their respective duties. The husband is at variance how came his posting at village Gumjal and alleges that it was on account of a complaint filed by the wife against him and as a punishment, but this does not sound to be true, for, geographically speaking, Gumjal is the first village on the Punjab side from Sri Ganganagar and very near to it He could not have chosen for himself a better place for posting. Admittedly, on 3-8-1979, the wife, who was expecting a baby, left Sri Ganganagar and proceeded to Delhi putting herself under the care of her sister Kamal Koshi P. W. According to the wife, she went to Delhi with the consent of the husband. The husband disputes it and says that she had gone there without his consent, being arrogant as being better qualified and paid. Be that as it may, a caesarean son was born to her at Lady Harding Hospital, New Delhi on 12-9-1979 and the happy news was conveyed to him instantaneously. Here, again there is a divergence and the wife claims that her people sent him a telegram conveying the good news but the husband says that one of his brothers, a resident of Delhi, conveyed to him the happy news. All the same, the following morning on 13-9-1979 he was at Delhi to be with his wife and child. He spent there roughly 10 to 12 days' time, concededly spending some time in the hospital and the remaining in the house of his sister-in-law Kamal Koshi. It is at this point of time that unpleasantness seemingly brewed up between them, for he wanted to take his wife and child back to Sri Ganganagar but the wife as also her sister were not willing to agree to his suggestion. The ostensible reason given was the caesarean operation, the delicate health of the wife and the infancy of the child. As the wife alleges, at that time he made a demand of a scooter and a television set as part of the customary presents to be given to him on his becoming a father but the husband, on the other hand, denies this vehemently. However return he did to Sri Ganganagar.

(3.) In November, 1979 (the date being immaterial), the wife left Delhi and came to her parental house at Abohar (Geographically speaking, Abohar falls on the way from Delhi to Sri Ganganagar). Then seemingly started a tug of war between the parties so far as their pleading and evidence goes. Each tried to out-dp each other in depicting their respective efforts to re-establish the matrimonial home till the crucial date of 1st March, 1980. Whereas the husband claims that firsly in November, 1979 he alone: then secondly on 13-1-1980 a cousin of his by the name of Jagdish Raj PW4; and thirdly on 31-1-1980 his parents, his uncle and himself, made efforts to bring the wife to the matrimonial home, the wife on the other hand claims that Panchayats were taken by her father and relatives on two to three occasions in that interval, seeking her rehabilitation but in vain. While at Sri Ganganagar, as averred by her, she was put certain demands to be met by her. Firstly the husband had raised a demand of Rs. 15,000/-avowedly to get over the obligation to marry off his sister which was added to (as stated at the trial) by another sum of Rs. 10,000/- as demanded by his father. The learned trial Judge, in a long and winding judgment scathingly commented on the vagueness, quality and somewhat discrepant statements of the wife's witnesses in the matter of formation of her Panchayats, On the other hand, the husband's evidence, despite being that of relatives, was commented favourably on account of its precision and apparent naturalness. This was one of the factors which weighed with the learned trial Judge to break the matrimonial bond.