HAWA SINGH Vs. SANTOSH ALIAS GUDDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is husband's appeal whose petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter called the Act), has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge -II, Bhiwani, on January 7, 1987.

(2.) THE marriage between the parties was solemnised on June 15, 1983. One female child was born out of the said wedlock. The parties remained together as such up to July, 1985, when the wife left the matrimonial home. The present petition for divorce was filed on November 8, 1985, for seeking divorce as contemplated under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act, inter -alia on the grounds that, -(a) immediately after the solemnisation of the marriage, the respondent turned violent. She always rebuked him and taunted him on one occasion or the other ; (b) she had been under the influence of his brother and she never allowed the Appellant to have a peaceful cordial martial life ; (c) she threatened him of dire consequences. She tried to commit suicide and gave threats to this effect also ; (d) she gave birth to a daughter, but she had no love or affection for that baby ; (e) she left the suckling baby at his house which is being brought up by him ; (f) he tried to reconcile with her, but it proved ineffective. About one and a half months ago, she made an application to the Police against him and his family members setting out false and baseless allegations against them. The said allegations were found to be untrue and false. So, the said application was filed by the Police after enquiry and that (g) her behaviour towards him and his family members had been cruel. It was an established fact that his reputation was at stake. He and his brothers and sisters are to be implicated in false criminal cases. According to the husband, the cumulative effect of all these facts and circumstances had left him with no alternative but to seek divorce as envisaged under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act. In the written statement filed on behalf of the wife, it was pleaded inter -alia that the petition was based on wrong facts and was liable to be dismissed. The allegations made in the petition were also denied. It was pleaded that she had done everything to maintain the matrimonial home, but the parents of the husband and the husband himself, were not happy with the dowry brought by her in marriage and they were also not happy with her as she was not beautiful and good looking. She was asked to bring further dowry in the form of scooter, television etc. In the month of May, 1985, the husband and his brother Umed Singh gave beating to her and threatened to murder her in a room in case she did not bring Rs. 4,000/ - from her father which the husband required to make payment of the instalments of the buffalo's loan. She brought Rs. 4,000/ - in cash and gave it to her husband, but his lust did not stop there. Again in July, 1985, she was given beating and turned out of the house. She was threatened that in case she did not bring Rs. 5,000/ - more, she will not be allowed to stay in the matrimonial home. After the replication was filed, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent -wife submitted that in the divorce petition, the particulars of the acts of cruelty on the part of the wife were never given as required by Rule 4 of the Hindu Marriage (Punjab) Rules. 1956, (hereinafter called the Rules) and that reports were made to the Police about the beatings given to her when she was turned out of the matrimonial home and later on when the husband filed the divorce petition, the same was withdrawn Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the petition has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court.