GOVANJI Vs. KADUVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 24th April, 1984, passed by the District Judge, Doongarpur, in Civil Misc. Case No. 15/82 by which the marriage between the appellant and respondent was dissolved by a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that parties were married at Upargaon District Doongarpur, according to the Hindu custom. The petitioner is the wife, she alleged against her husband that on a number of occasions he has given beating and treated her with cruelty. He also turned her out from the house and thereafter did not take any care of her. Thus, the petitioner has based her petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In reply, the husband contended that the allegations levelled against him by the wife are false and frivolous and he never gave any beating to her. He pleaded that her father Memji wanted to give her in 'Nata' for purpose of personal gains. The learned Trial Court framed issues regarding cruelty and desertion. Both the parties lead evidence. Petitioner examined herself and produced Memji AW 2 and Thawara AW 3. Non -Petitioner husband examined himself and produced Gangji NW 2 and Bhalji NW 3 and Govind Ram NW 4. After appreciating the entire evidence on record and seeing that no reconciliation was possible, the learned District Judge gave a finding that the Non petitioner is guilty of cruelty and accordingly a decree of divorce was granted.

(3.) MR . Suresh Shrimali, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the pleadings of the petitioner are defective in as much as particulars regarding various acts of cruelty have not been given neither dates nor time or place has been mentioned. He has also submitted that even it has not been pleaded that the alleged acts had given any reasonable apprehension to the wife for any danger to her life. He has relied on number of authorities to substantiate his contention. Placing reliance on Sulekha Baragi v. Kamla Kanta Daragi 1981 (1) DMC 217, he submits that in a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty, the petitioner is required to prove cruelty of the nature which gives rise to a reasonable apprehension in his mind, that it would be harmful and injurious to life. He also relied upon Dervan v. Dervan 1981 (2) DMC, 12. To substantiate that a case of cruelty cannot be made out on the strength of general evidence. To the same effect is the authority of Suresh Kumari Gulathi v. Suman Gulathi 1981(1) DMC 398, wherein also it has been observed by the Court that it should be pleaded that acts of cruelty were harmful or injurious to body, mind or health of the petitioner. He has also put reliance on Jeetu v. Ram Murthi 1980 HLR 516. Jeet Ram v. Chanoo 1981 HLR 180 and also on Darshan Singh v. Amarjeet Kaur 1977 HLR 590. These authorities have been cited to prove that allegations should be specific and that the charge of cruelty should be examined in the light of some complaints, if made, during the period the wife remained with the husband.