* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP. 64/2010
Date of Decision : May 11, 2010
LALIT KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sachin Kaushik, Adv.
versus
MAMTA ..... Respondent
Through: None.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
(3) Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? Yes
JUDGMENT
ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral) MAT.APP. 64/2010 and CM APPL.8743/2010
1. Impugned in this petition is the judgment and decree of the learned ADJ dated 14.1.2010, whereby petition of the Petitioner filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as „Act‟) seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty against his wife, Respondent was dismissed. MAT APPL. 64/2010 Page 1 of 7
2. Parties to the petition were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 23.2.1996. Three children were born out of the wedlock of the parties. Because of some quarrel inter se them, they separated on 15.12.2006. Children are in the custody of the Petitioner. After about two years of separation this petition was filed.
3. Precisely, the case of the Petitioner is that soon after marriage, Respondent started creating nuisance and misbehaving with the family members. Respondent failed to understand norms and values of a joint family despite all the endeavors made by the Petitioner. Respondent allegedly picked up quarrels, used filthy and abusive language the Petitioner and other family members, did not look after the children with due care, love and affection. Petitioner being govt. employee had to reach office in time but Respondent did not provide him breakfast and Tiffin in time. Respondent used to desert the Petitioner and children without any rhyme or reason and stay with her parents. She filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Petitioner had to remain in Police Station for whole night, a MAT APPL. 64/2010 Page 2 of 7 number of times where he was given beatings by the police.
4. Respondent circulated one adulterated CD on 9.09.2008 in the school of the Petitioner wherein she tried to edit his voice and the voice of an unidentified lady full of filthy, vulgar talk and concocted story. Because of this, Petitioner lost his status, reputation etc. amongst his school staff and relatives. After serving legal notice upon the Respondent on 18.09.2008, he filed the petition for divorce.
5. Respondent on receipt of summons appeared in the court through her counsel Shri Suresh Aggarwal on 15.1.2009. However, thereafter Respondent did not care to appear in person before the court despite directions nor anyone else, including her Advocate appeared on her behalf on 13.3.2009. Hence, she was proceeded ex-parte.
6. Petitioner filed an affidavit Ex.PW-1/A in evidence on 7.9.2009 stating on affirmation the acts of cruelty allegedly committed by the Respondent on him, as highlighted above.
7. Trial Court, keeping in mind Rule 7 (g) (4) of the High Court MAT APPL. 64/2010 Page 3 of 7 Rules and Orders came to the conclusion that Petitioner had not pleaded specific acts of cruelty, occasion, time and place of such acts and finding, allegations vague in nature, dismissed the petition.
8. Rule 7 (g) (4) of High Court Rules and Orders regulate the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. As per this provision, matrimonial offence or offences alleged or other grounds, upon which the relief is sought, setting out with sufficient particularity the time and place of the acts alleged, and other facts relied upon, but not the evidence by which they are intended to be proved.
9. Thus, it is clear that Petitioner was required to plead specific acts of cruelty, the occasion when they allegedly took place and place where they were committed. Neither in the petition nor in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, Petitioner has stated specific acts of cruelty, occasion and the place where such acts were committed. Allegations are general in nature. They reflect small tit-bits and disputes in matrimonial life between the couple which generally occur on trivial issues. Such type of MAT APPL. 64/2010 Page 4 of 7 acts with no stretch of imagination can be treated as acts of cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act.
10. Even, CD which was allegedly circulated and shown by the Respondent in his school to his colleagues and other staff members was not produced in evidence by the Petitioner. Trial Court did observe that as per letter Ex.PW1/A dated 14.07.2008, execution of which was not properly proved, Respondent had handed over the CD to the Petitioner, and therefore, Petitioner was in possession of the CD containing defamatory, filthy and vulgar language.
11. Withholding of substantial and relevant evidence by the Petitioner naturally was a factor which went against him.
12. Petitioner placed on record one document executed by the Respondent on 14.7.2008. Translated copy of which reads:-
"I, Mamta W/o Lalit Kumar, 4/2382, Bihari Colony, Gali No. 10 will not use abusive language with her husband and will not go to his friends, related to office and other friends alone and will not call anyone and if I break my conditions then your conditions will come to an MAT APPL. 64/2010 Page 5 of 7 end automatically. I am giving you this last C.D.
Sd/ Mamta 14.07.2008"
13. This letter rather suggests that Respondent was made to accept certain conditions imposed upon her by the Petitioner. There is another document dated 14.7.2008 written by the Petitioner himself which reads:-
"I, Lalit Kumar am taking back to my wife Mamta from Rohini to my house at Bihari Colony on this condition that in future neither will beat her and nor do torture her and nor keep relation with any other woman.
Sd/ Lalit Kumar 14.07.2008"
14. This document indicates that Petitioner used to torture and beat the Respondent. This also suggests that Petitioner was maintaining relations with other women to which Respondent must have objected.
15. Under these circumstances, Trial court rightly observed in para 15 and 16 of the judgment that the allegations of cruelty MAT APPL. 64/2010 Page 6 of 7 were general in nature. No specific incident, date or time was mentioned. The allegations were vague in nature. Non production of CD and non mentioning of the existence of any CD in the pleadings as well as in his deposition created doubt on genuineness of Ex.PW1/-A. The Petitioner therefore failed to prove his case.
16. I find myself in agreement with the findings of the Trial Court.
17. Hence, appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed.
ARUNA SURESH, J.
MAY 11, 2010 vk MAT APPL. 64/2010 Page 7 of 7