PREM LAL GUPTA Vs. SUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Prem Lal Gupta is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.7.1998 of the learned District Judge, whereby his petition for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, on the ground of cruelty, has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts, relevant for the disposal of the appeal, may be noticed. Appellant filed a petition, under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent pleading that the marriage was solemnized on 19.2.1984 according to the rites and customs applicable to Hindus and after the marriage, the parties lived within the jurisdiction of the Court upto March, 1991 and on 7.11.1984 a male child was also born. It was alleged that the respondent had been treating the appellant with cruelty from the very beginning. Following instances were stated as acts of cruelty on the part of the respondent: - (i) Respondent is a haughty and ill -tempered lady and from the very beginning she had been insulting the appellant as the appellant at the time of the marriage was unemployed, while the respondent herself was employed in some Government department. (ii) The respondent started suspecting fidelity of the appellant and spread rumors that he was having illicit relations with his brothers wife, a lady colleague and several other women. (iii) She would always quarrel with the appellant and even huri abuses in the presence if his relatives and friends to lower his esteem. (iv) Once when the son of the parties was in infancy, the respondent left him (the son) at her parents place, without consulting the appellant. (v) The respondent did not bestow the normal love and affection on the son of the parties, with the result that the parents of - the appellant had to take care of the child and to bring it up. (vi) Once in the year 1991, on the occasion of Shivratri a ritual known as Udhyapan, was being performed at the parental house of the appellant. All those present on the occasion performed the Pooja in couples. The respondent, however, refused to join the appellant in performing the Pooja in the presence of his brothers, parents, neighbours and other relatives numbering about forty to fifty, who had been invited for the occasion and this caused severe mental torture to the appellant. (vii) In connivance with the respondent, rather at her behest, a brother of the respondent made a complaint to the Director of the Department, in which the appellant got employed after marriage, that he was having illicit relations with a named female colleague, employed in the same department and at the same station, with the result that the appellant was transferred from Shimla District to Nahan and the engagement of the said woman colleague of the appellant was broken by her fiance. (viii)The appellant had a friend with whom he entered into a contract for construction of a flat for him and paid him some amount of money in advance and once that friend, along with his wife, went with the appellant to the main bus stand at Shimla to see him off as he was going to Calcutta and in the meanwhile the respondent reached there and started publically accusing the wife of that friend of having an affair with the appellant. (ix) In June 1991 the appellant invited his sister and brother -in -law to his place in Totu for dinner, the respondent not only did not cook the food but also insulted the appellant in the presence of his sister and brother -in -law, (x) Once in the year 1992, when the appellant was living at Nahan because of his transfer to that place, on a complaint made by a brother of the respondent, the respondent went there in the company of her brother and made enquiry with the Chowkidar of the rest house and one woman living in the neighbourhood of the appellant whether any female visited him at his place and whether he had any female colleagues, (xi) The petition was filed in July 1993 and it was alleged that the parties had been living separate since March, 1991.

(3.) Respondent filed reply, wherein she raised a number of preliminary objections. It was alleged that the petition was not competent, the appellant wanted to take benefit of his own wrongs and there was avoidable delay in filing the petition. All the specific allegations of cruelty were denied. It was specifically denied that the respondent did not join the appellant in the religious ceremony that took place at his parents place, the respondent did not look after and take care of her son or she left her son during his infancy with her mother. It was alleged that no baseless allegations had ever been made by the respondent. It was also alleged that in fact it was the appellant who had treated the respondent with cruelty.