SMT. REENA Vs. ARUN KUMAR CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unfortunate ailing wife has knocked the door of the High Court to assail the divorce decree granted against her by the Additional district Judge, Jalandhar on 24.8.1992.

(2.) Uncontroverted facts of the case are that the respondent Arun Kumar Chawla was married to the appellant on 5.3.1988 at jalandhar city according to Hindu religious rites. After few months of the marriage, the applellant become pRegulation nt from loins of the respondent, but the pRegulation cy was got terminated.

(3.) Respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short the 'Act'), Alleging that after a month of their marriage, respondent started compelling him to have separate residence and own separate independent business. She also insisted the husband to take his share in the property from his father. The husband declined saying that his another brother, her settled in U.S.A. and he has to look after his old parents. this refusal enraged the applellant - wife, who started behaving in a very arrogant, cruelsome and nagging manner. She refused to prepare tea or meals when visitors came in the matrimonial home. She used to call him a spineless man and tell him that his position in the house is nothing better than that of a servant. Her behaviour towards his mopther was so contempuous and despisefull that she used to say openly that she will have respite when her mother-in-law dies. Being disgusted with her nagging and contemptuous behaviour, his mother went to U.S.A. In the absence of her mother-in-law, the appellant refused to cook meals for the husband and father-in-law and they had to purchase meals from the market. Without obtaining his conseny,the appellant got her pRegulation cy terminated and deprived him of the pleasures and pride of becoming a father. In the Lohri of 1989 as well as on 2.5.1989, she threatened to commit suicide asserting that thereby she will falsely implicate her husband and his relations. His sisters whenever came with their husbands to see them, she insulted them also and asked them not to come to their house. Thus, according to the husband- responsent, the appellant was remiss in discharging her matrimonial duties. Her above acts of commission/omission and arrogant behavior caused such mental cruelty with such a high degree that it is not safe for the husband to live with her under the same roof in the matrimonial home. Hence, on the ground of cruelty, he filed this petition for divorce on 8.12.1989.