JIA LAL ABROL Vs. SARLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jammu, dated 30-4-1976 in a petition under Sections 10/13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The trial Judge holding that there was no substance in the petition and that the appellant having failed to prove the grounds alleged by him in the petition for judicial separation/divorce dismissed the petition with costs.

(2.) THE parties were admittedly married according to Hindu rites in Jammu in July 1967. They lived together for some time but according to the appellant- petitioner, the wife, the respondent, was suffering from a disease in nose because of which she was continuously emitting such awful smell as made it unbearable for him either to sit by her side or to enjoy her company or to have sexual intercourse with her. The petitioner also alleged that besides suffering from this awful disease the wife was also of an unsound mind. According to him the wife was suffering from both these diseases even at the time of marriage itself but this fact was kept back from him by her and her parents. He alleged further that the disease of nose was incurable and despite all possible treatment which he arranged for the wife, the disease could not be cured, and as such has caused a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful and injurious for him to continue to live with her. According to the petitioner the very purpose of the marriage has thus been foiled and the circumstances have given rise to a situation sufficient to show that the wife has been guilty of committing cruelty towards him. The wife however, denied all these allegations and contended that after the marriage between the parties she lived with the petitioner for about two years and the relations during that period remained very cordial between her and her husband. The petitioner according to her, however, developed an idea to have another wife during the lifetime of the respondent and therefore, with that aim in view started maltreating her and the attitude of the petitioner towards her underwent a change and his behaviour became so cruel that she had to leave the house of the petitioner and take refuge in the house of her brother. The petitioner however, on intervention of the relatives took her back after some time but finally turned her out of his house in March 1972 and since then she has been living separately from him. She denied to be suffering from any disease of nose or throat which could possibly prevent the petitioner from having cohabitation with her or from enjoying her company. She also denied that she was of unsound mind and contended that she was a completely normal person competent to manage her affairs. She finally contended that the petition has been lodged with the sole intention of getting rid of her without any reasonable cause and to enable the petitioner to take some other person as his wife.

(3.) A number of witnesses were produced and examined by both the parties in the trial court. On behalf of the petitioner Ram Paul, Devi Dass, Chaman Lal Mattoo and Bishan Dass, Yesh Paul, and Dr. J. R. Sethi were examined. The respondent produced Om Parkash, Mahesh Dass, Ved Parkash, Dr. K. R. Gandotra, Hira Nand, Dr. Chaman Lal, Ashok Kumar and Virinder Khajuria. The parties were also examined as their own witnesses and Dr. Jyoti Parkash appears to have been examined as a court witness.