JASBIR KAUR Vs. JASWANT SINGLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18.12.1987 allowing husband's petition for divorce against the wife.

(2.) Facts of the case are as follows : Jaswant Singh (hereinafter to be referred as husband) instituted petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against Jasbir Kaur (hereinafter to be referred as wife) seeking dissolution of his marriage with her by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. He was married to her on 22.1.1984. A son was born to them on 27.11.1984 who is in her custody. There was cordiality between the two which was only short lived. She was under the Influence of her parents since the inception of marriage. Since the inception of marriage, her parents had in view his property for being grabbed. She was pleading with him to separate from his parents. His father-in-law also coaxed him to separate himself from his parents. Finding that he was not agreeable to their suggestion to separate himself from his parents, she became curt and insolent. She was posted as teacher in Govt. High School, Dukheri near Ambala Cantt. In the beginning, she did not give up the job though he wanted her to give up the job and be with him alsways. He assured her that he would provide her very comfort in the matrimonial home. Her being in the job was an impediment in the way of his enjoying the conjugal society. She was assured that he would arrange some coaching school where she could coach children. She reduced her visits to him in the wake of his refusal to separate himself from his parents. Whenever she visited him in the matrimonial home, her behaviour towards mem was improper and unbecoming of a dutiful wife. She would not cook food and perform other household chores. She would adopt stubborn posture hurling filthy abuse on him. She would abuse her sister-in-law and mother-in-law. If an effort was made to calm and quiten her so that she did not behave indecently, she would try to beat him and her sisters-in-law. Life became virtually a hell for him. She gave birth to a son on 27.11.1984 at PGI, Chandigarh. After the birth of that child, she came to his house only twice or thrice but did not stay for long. She stayed only or 2-3 days at a time. During that spell her behaviour towards him was unwifely. She wanted him to have his share in the ancestral property separated from that of his parents and sell it, and build a house at Mohali with the sale-proceeds. After March/April, 1985, she never visited him and is putting up with her father at Mohali. Further more, she was not maintaining chastity of character. She was learnt to be having intimate relationship with some 'Babu' at village Dukheri. When he sought to advise her to shun her intimacy with that person, she replied that he had no right to interfere with her private life and she admitted her intimacy with that person. Despite the intervention of the Panchayats, she did not choose to return to the matrimonial fold.

(3.) Wife contested this petition urging that her parents never interfered with their matrimonial life. She never put forth any demand upon him that he should separate himself from his parents nor her parents ever put forth such a demand. He gather beating and asked her to bring money from her parents so that he could purchase one acre of land in front of their new house beyond the canal at village Sukhrampur Tapprian. She showed her inability to oblige him saying that her parents had already spent enough on her marriage and it was not possible for them to arrange amount of Rs.'70.000/-. It was denied that she was carrying on with anyone. Infact, the person named by him is Clerk aged about 58 years, whom people consult in official matters. She treated him like her father. She was always ready and willing to cohabit with him. She wrote many letters to take her back to the matrimonial home. She filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. He came once to the house of her parents with some gundas and gave out that he would take her to the matrimonial home only if they give him Rs. 70,000. He threatened her father that if he was unable to give Rs. 70.000/-, she should sign some blank papers so that deed of divorce could be scribed on it. She ignored these threats. On 27.7.1986, he came to her father's house again alongwith a constable. Her parents agreed to send her to the matrimonial home if he gave them undertaking that he would not ill-treat her. Boot was rather on the other leg. It was he who treated her with cruelty. He gave her beating and turned her out of the matrimonial home.