Inderjit Kaur vs Surinder Singh

Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Wife has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11.1.1988 whereby allowing the appeal divorce decree granted by the Matrimonial Court is reversed.

Uncontroverted facts are that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 14.5.1967. In this wedlock, the appellantwife gave birth to three children. Out of her two surviving children, the elder one is male child born on 15.11.1969; the younger one is female child born on 7.12.1976; the daughter is residing with the mother while the son is residing with father. Parties are residing separately since September/November, 1984.

Appellantpetitioner filed divorce petition in November 1985 on the ground of cruelty. After marriage husband always treated her with cruelty. Under the influence of inebriation, he used to give her severe beatings. Even the birth of children did not make any difference in his behaviour. She was working as a teacher. Since 1983 her husband had been sitting idle. He started visiting her school and used to snatch her salary on pay day in the school itself. Thus, she was lowered down in the eyes of her colleagues as well. The cruel treatment of the husband gradually increased to unbearable extent. On 25.9.1984 he left the house with his son Satbir Singh and thereafter never came back to the matrimonial home. Since then he has deserted her.

Husband denied the assertions made in the divorce petition and inter alia pleaded that at the time of marriage, wife was only higher secondary pass; he encouraged her for higher studies and she passed her J.B.T. examination as Giani. She was appointed a teacher and was getting Rs. 1,500/ to Rs. 1,600/ as pay. He never deprieved her of salary; never took liquor and never beat her. Till 1982 they were living happily. They purchased a house in their joint name. He wanted to reside in the newly purchased house but she refused and preferred to live in the rented house for the reasons best known to her. He left the rented house on 21.11.1984 along with his mother; his son joined him later on. He admitted that he was unemployed.

On these pleadings, issues were framed. Parties adduced their evidence. The learned District Judge relied on the evidence adduced by the appellant wife and held that the husband is guilty of cruelty and on this ground, decree of divorce was granted.

Husband preferred an appeal. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the divorce decree passed by the learned District Judge.

Appellant's learned counsel vehemently argued that this marriage is irretrievably broken. The parties have been living apart since 1984. Appellantwife is living with her daughter. Husband is living with son; children have become major and son is now married. The learned counsel strongly criticised the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the ground that he has not discussed the evidence adduced by the parties as well as the findings recorded by the learned Matrimonial Court. The wife adduced evidence to prove that she was treated cruelly by the husband under the influence of intoxication. Husband consumed liquor daily and under its influence used to beat her mercilessly. He used to go to her school on pay day to snatch her pay packet therefrom and thereby she was lowered in the estimation of her colleagues. The learned District Judge has rightly weighed the evidence of the parties and correctly awarded the decree of divorce in appellant's favour, but the learned Single Judge without marshalling the evidence and without discussing how the findings arrived at by the District Judge are erroneous, allowed the husband's appeal.

Appellant's learned counsel Shri Mittal further argued that the husband has made a false allegation against the appellantwife that she is having illicit relations with Charan Singh Bedi. This virtually amounts to cruelty. On this ground also, the wife is entitled to a decree of divorce.

Respondent's learned counsel pointed out that the wife pleaded three grounds of cruelty taking of liquor, beating and snatching of the pay packet. Appellantwife stated on oath that the husbandrespondent used to take liquor, but no other witness has corroborated her on this point. She also stated that on two occasions she was beaten before Gurmeet Kaur PW3, but this witness Gurmeet Kaur has not corroborated her on this point. The petitioner appellant also stated that after 1983 respondenthusband used to snatch her pay packet from the school. According to her statement, this was done by the husband even before her friend Avinash Kaur Bedi, but Avinash Kaur Bedi PW4 has not corroborated her on this point. He also pointed out that the appellantwife all through insisted for living in a rented house but she could not give any plausible reason for living in that house, though the husband has purchased a house in their joint name and has shifted to that house along with his mother and son. He also submitted that husband never pleaded in the reply that the appellant is having any illicit relations with Charan Singh Bedi. Only during the evidence this fact was brought on record. Even in his statement, husband has not made such an allegation. He only objected that she should not go to the house of Charan Singh Bedi and his wife Avinash Kaur Bedi be also not allowed to visit their house, but the wife insisted and denied to abide by his wish. That was a real cause of discord between the two. According to him, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the husband's appeal and set aside the divorce decree.

After hearing the rival contentions, in our considered view, appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Let us now delve into the merits. Culling the evidence of respondentwife we glean that though she has testified that the husband used to take liquor and under its influence to beat her, but no witness has corroborated her on this point. Even her son Satbir Singh PW5 and her friend Avinash Kaur Bedi PW4 have not corroborated her. Her brother is silent on this point. Wife also stated that on two occasions she was beaten before Gurmeet Kaur PW3 but she does not say even a word about it. On the point of snatching of pay packet, the appellant is not corroborated by her own friend Avinash Kaur Bedi.

So far as visits of Charan Singh Bedi and his wife Avinash Kaur Bedi are concerned, the husband has clearly stated that he does not like that they should visit his house. In his statement, he has not said that he suspects that the wife is having illicit relations with Charan Singh Bedi. Only in crossexamination such a suggestion was given to him which he categorically denied, therefore, it cannot be said that he made any allegation against her that she is having illicit relations with Charan Singh Bedi.

In the scenario of Indian family, in conjugal life both the partners are required to respect each other's wishes directions. Admittedly, Avinash Kaur Bedi is the appellantwife's friend. Respondenthusband objected that Avinash Kaur and her husband should not come to his house. It is also an admitted fact that Avinash Kaur Bedi and Charan Singh Bedi live near the rented house where the appellantwife is residing. Wife strongly refused to abide by the simple wish of her husband that Charan Singh Bedi and Avinash Kaur Bedi should not visit their house. No plausible reason is assigned by the husband for saying so or by the wife for so declining. These are ordinary wear and tear of conjugal life. On trifle matters there may be bickerings between the couple but that should not give rise to such a difference so as to claim divorce on any count. Both are educated persons. Now their children are grown up. They should reconcile their differences if not for their own sake at least for the sake of their children; the daughter is yet to be married. It is also pertinent to mention here that the wife could not prove any justifiable cause of not joining her husband in the house which is now owned by them. Why at all she is residing in a rented premises along with their daughter though they have purchased a house for them to live in ? The answer is in oblivion.

In our considered view, wife has utterly failed to prove any ground to seek divorce. There is no reliable evidence on record to prove that the conduct/behaviour of the husband has become intolerable for the wife or she was continuously tortured, maltreated or beaten by the husband. No doubt, husband has no right to treat his wife cruelly, but at the same time wife is also required to be tolerant, passive and of adjustable nature. The Court cannot blink at her act of total indolence and petulance. On a conspectus of the evidence, we fully agree with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. To put it pithily, her insistence on separate living constitutes recalcitration. It is not done with the object of avoiding bickerings. Reasonable wear and tear between husband and wife amounts only to disharmony and not cruelty. Instead of bringing harmony in the family she brought acrimony.

Considering the above facts, in our considered view, the appellant is not entitled for any relief. Respondenthusband has not wronged her rather she has wronged the respondenthusband. Only because of her conduct and intolerable behaviour and nonadjusting nature, whole of the family is divided into two parts for which there is hardly any justification. Considering her conduct, we are constrained to reject the prayer so fervently advanced by the learned counsel Sh. A.K. Mittal in his usual vehemence that in the alternative a decree for judicial separation be granted. We simply hope that in future the parties would bury their differences for the sake of their children and would start living together.

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.