PUSHPA DEVI Vs. PRAHLAD SAHAI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband's petition for grant of divorce has been accepted by the Judge Family Court, Jaipur, by his order, dated, 8th June 1990, against which the wife, Pushpa Devi has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the appellant and the respondent were married according to the Hindu rites and customs in the year 1977 and a son was born on 21. 10. 1978 and a daughter was born on 24. 2. 1980. THEy lived together at Jaipur, where the husband respondent is working in the office of the Director General Police. THE appellant was found to be suffering from tuberculosis and for her treatment she stayed for quite some time at Delhi with her parents, and her treatment was done at Jaipur also. Details about their married life shall be seen lateron and here it may be said that the parties parted company on 9. 4. 1988 and soon after this on 11. 4. 1988, the petition for divorce was presented before the court. THE initial grounds on which the petition was based were amended and some new grounds were added after the appellant filed her reply. THE manner in which the final separation took place shall be seen later, but it may be said that according to the respondent, the appellant and her son were taken away by the appellant's mother, while according to the appellant she and her son were thrown out of the house. THE learned Judge, Family Court framed a number of points, on the basis of the circumstances pointed out by both the parties and on the basis of evidence held that the behavior of the appellant was one of cruelty towards the husband and this cruelty fell within the scope of matrimonial cruelly, on basis of which a decree of divorce could be granted.

(3.) THE learned Judge, Family Court did not accept that the appellant was suffering from lever tuberculosis prior to her marriage and that this fact was concealed from the respondent. At the same time it was held that the illness of the appellant was not on account of any kick or blow given by her mother-in-law in the abdomen. On the statement of the respondent and his mother and his father, it was held that the appellant was indifferent towards her children and she had no attachment towards them. Point No. 3 about the sexual aberration was not believed and on the point No. 4 it was held that the appellant wanted that her husband should slay away from his parents. On the point No. 5 it was held that the appellant had made false allegations against the respondent that the latter did not give him food and that she used to torture her for dowry and such false allegations amounted to mental cruelty. THE manner in which the appellant treated her in-laws and used words for them was also held to constitute cruelty towards the husband. THE incident of 3. 2. 1988 was also held to be proved wherein the appellant's mother, two uncles and brother came at the residence of the respondent and created a scene levelling several allegations and at the same time giving out threats and this was also considered to be a ground for causing mental disturbance and tension. Points 8 and 9 were decided against the respondent. Under point 10, the learned Judge did not believe that the appellant's mother and brother forcibly took away the appellant and her son Brijesh as the respondent had sent a telegram to the appellant's mother to come to Jaipur to take away the appellant and Brijesh. THE complaints to the officers in the department was also held to be cruelty towards the husband. As for the proceedings started after the divorce petition was filed it was held that the some were limited to the allegations mentioned in it and could not be said to be cruel behaviour. Looking at the evidence as a whole the learned Judge concluded that the appellant's behaviour towards her in laws was cruel and she herself admitted that she was not capable of looking after children and she did not look after them and she wanted that she should stay away from her in-laws and she made false allegations against her husband and her in-laws which all show that she and her mother were out to have their own way so much so they in 1987 went to the house of the respondent with other persons and created a scene and her conduct was such which caused mental torture to the respondent and that decree for divorce was granted.