Madanlal Gangle vs Mrs. Manjula

A.K. Awasthy, J.—Appellant/petitioner has filed this appeal u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 23.7.1997 in Civil Suit No. 6-A/1995 whereby his petition filed for the divorce and on the ground of cruelty was dismissed.

The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage in between appellant and the respondent was solemnized in the year 1992 according to the Hindu rites and customs and both were working in Government College as a Lecturer and in the year 1995 son was born out of the wedlock.

The case of the appellant petitioner is that his wife was in habit of insulting and misbehaving and whenever he went to meet his wife at Jaora, where she was posted as Lecturer, the respondent forced him to prepare the meals and wash the clothes and do other domestic work. That the respondent has refused to live with him and she has not turned up to her matrimonial house even at the time of the death of his father. That the defendant has got herself aborted without the consent and the knowledge of the appellant and that at the time of delivery of his son in 1995 she left the matrimonial house just after few days of the delivery. The appellant has submitted that the respondent is not interest in living with him and her behaviour with him was cruel and as such, the marriage be dissolved by the decree of divorce.

The defendant has denied that she used to force her husband to prepare the meal or do the domestic work for that she misbehaved or insulted her husband. It is further alleged that she made an application for her transfer to Rajpur where her husband was posted but his application was not allowed by the department. The respondent has further pleaded that after one year of her marriage, she got herself aborted due to the advice of the doctor and her ill-health. The respondent has alleged that the appellant was in habit of physically assaulting her and he used to take out all her pay and the appellant has also beaten her father. The respondent has alleged that the appellant is greedy husband and he use to demand the money and the gold ornaments as a dowry and she was several times beaten by him to satisfy his greed of dowry. The respondent has further alleged that she has lodged the report in the Police against the cruel behaviour of her husband. The respondent has further alleged that the appellant has made the false allegation in the petition and, as such, it be dismissed.

The learned Trial Court after framing the issues has examined petitioner as P.W. 1 his brother Suman P.W. 2, Mangilal P.W. 3 and from the opposite side Manjula D.W. 1 and Sanjay D.W. 2. The learned Trial Court has held that the appellant has failed to prove the ground of causing the mental cruelty by the respondent and that the allegation made by him are pretty, flimsy and exaggerated and, as such, his petition for divorce is not tenable.

The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and ignored the serious lapses by the wife and, as such, the decree of divorce be passed on the ground of cruelty. Petitioner Madanlal P.W. 1 has made the following allegation against his wife:

(i) That his wife was in habit of forcing him to prepare the meal, wash the cloths and do other domestic work.

(ii) That she has not turned up to see him even after the death of his father.

(iii) That his wife was not prepared to bear his child and got the abortion without his consent or knowledge.

(iv) That the defendant is not willing to get himself transferred to the place where he was posted and she was not coming to live with him.

The petitioner P.W. 1 has admitted in Para 13 of his cross-examination that when he asked his wife to get herself transferred then, she told him that she has made the application for her transfer but the Authorities are not transferring her. The defendant has also stated on oath that she was not transferred even after her application and efforts to get her transferred to the place where the petitioner was living. That defendant has further stated that she got herself aborted after one year of the marriage because she was ill and the doctor had advised her not to bear the child. It is clear from the evidence that at the time of the alleged abortion after one year of the marriage, the defendant was living away from her husband and she was also teaching in the College. Consequently, in the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in holding that the abortion by the defendant is not a ground of causing the mental cruelty to her husband.

The defendant has denied on oath that she use to force her husband to prepare the meal or do the domestic work. The husband and wife both are educated and they are Government servants and even if the wife has asked her husband to prepare the meal or do the domestic work then, it was not an act of cruelty by the wife towards her husband. The learned Trial Court has rightly observed tht the petitioner is exaggerating the petty disputes between husband and wife in order to make out the ground of divorce. The incident alleged by the petitioner are the ordinary wear and tear of the matrimonial life and looking to the nature of the allegation, the ground of cruelty to dissolve the marriage is not made out.

The appeal is devoid of merits and it is, hereby, dismissed.