Hawa Singh vs Santosh Alias Guddo

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is husband''s appeal whose petition for divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter called the Act), has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge-II, Bhiwani, on January 7, 1987.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on June 15, 1983. One female child was born out of the said wedlock. The parties remained together as such up to July, 1985, when the wife left the matrimonial home. The present petition for divorce was filed on November 8, 1985, for seeking divorce as contemplated u/s 13(1) (ia) of the Act, inter-alia on the grounds that,-(a) immediately after the solemnisation of the marriage, the respondeat turned violent. She always rebuked him and taunted him on one occasion or the other ; (b) she had been under the influence of his brother and she never allowed the Appellant to have a peaceful cordial martial life ; (c) she threatened him of dire consequences. She tried to commit suicide and gave threats to this effect also ; (d) she gave birth to a daughter, but she had no love or affection for that baby ; (e) she left the suckling baby at his house which is being brought up by him ; (f) he tried to reconcile with her, but it proved ineffective. About one and a half months ago, she made an application to the Police against him and his family members setting out false and baseless allegations against them. The said allegations were found to be untrue and false. So, the said application was filed by the Police after enquiry and that (g) her behaviour towards him and his family members had been cruel. It was an established fact that his reputation was at stake. He and his brothers and sisters are to be implicated in false criminal cases. According to the husband, the cumulative effect of all these facts and circumstances had left him with no alternative but to seek divorce as envisaged u/s 13(1) (ia) of the Act. In the written statement filed on behalf of the wife, it was pleaded inter-alia that the petition was based on wrong facts and was liable to be dismissed. The allegations made in the petition were also denied. It was pleaded that she had done everything to maintain the matrimonial home, but the parents of the husband and the husband himself, were not happy with the dowry brought by her in marriage and they were also not happy with her as she was not beautiful and good looking. She was asked to bring further dowry in the form of scooter, television etc. In the month of May, 1985, the husband and his brother Umed Singh gave beating to her and threatened to murder her in a room in case she did not bring Rs. 4,000/- from her father which the husband required to make payment of the instalments of the buffalo''s loan. She brought Rs. 4,000/- in cash and gave it to her husband, but his lust did not stop there. Again in July, 1985, she was given beating and turned out of the house. She was threatened that in case she did not bring Rs. 5,000/- more, she will not be allowed to stay in the matrimonial home. After the replication was filed, the trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the Respondent has treated the Petitioner with cruelty on the ground as alleged in the petition?

Relief.

On the appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned trial Court found that the P. Ws. produced by the husband had not been able to prove that the wife was guilty of cruelty. On the other hand, it was the husband who was found to be cruel towards her. Thus, according to the trial Court, the husband could not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong as provided u/s 23 of the Act. In view of these findings the divorce petition was dismissed.

The learned Counsel for the husband submitted that the wife never cared to look after the new born baby and left it at his house. There was no evidence of any beating given to her by the Appellant nor there was any evidence that any money was brought by her for payment of the instalments towards the buffalo''s loan According to the learned Counsel, the said loan was taken prior to the marriage between the parties and, therefore, the question of asking the wife to bring money to re-pay the same did not arise. It was also contended that the wife made reports, Exhibits P 1 and P. 2, to the Police against him and his parents and, therefore, the cumulative effect of all these facts and circumstances amounted to cruelty to the Appellant on her part.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-wife submitted that in the divorce petition, the particulars of the acts of cruelty on the part of the wife were never given as required by Rule 4 of the Hindu Marriage (Punjab) Rules. 1956, (hereinafter called the Rules) and that reports were made to the Police about the beatings given to her when she was turned out of the matrimonial home and later on when the husband filed the divorce petition, the same was withdrawn Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the petition has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this appeal.

Rule 4 (vii) of the Rules requires that all petitions under Sections 9 to 13 shall state the matrimonial offences charged, set in separate paragraphs with the times and places of their alleged commission in the petition filed on behalf of the husband, it was never complied with. Apart from that, the learned trial Court after discussing the testimony of each and every witness in detail, came to the conclusion that the husband had not been able to prove that the wife was in any way cruel to him during the matrimonial life, As regards the reports to the Police, the learned trial Court observed that the same will not amount to cruelty because therein the wife only brought to the notice of the Police the atrocities committed on her by her husband and. when the Petitioner filed the divorce petition, she did not prosecute the same. Thus, the lodging of the reports of beating and cruel trertment to her could not be said to be an act of cruelty on her part; rather it proved the allegations made by her that she was given beating and turned out of the house by the husband.

As regards the allegation of the wife that more money was being demanded to be brought by her from her parents, it is amply proved from the evidence on the record, that the husband was required to pay the instalments towards the buffalo''s loan He did not produce any evidence to show that no amount was due on that account, and under the circumstances, the evidence produced by the wife in this behalf has been rightly accepted by the trial Court. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings of the trial Court as to be interfered with at the appellate stage.

Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.