Shashi Bala Anand vs Prem Pal Anand
2000 Latest Caselaw 285 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The respondent-husband filed matrimonial case against the appellant wife for divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is not necessary to set out the pleadings as the learned Addl. District Judge had noticed all facts. In support of his case, the respondent-husband examined P.W. 2 to P.W. 5 and himself as P.W. 1.

2. The appellant-wife besides examining herself as R.W.1, examined R.W.2 to R.W. 6. The learned Addl. District Judge after analysing the evidence placed on record observed:-

"On the face of the above evidence brought on record, the question is as to whether the parties have been able to establish their respective versions and whether on the basis of the established facts, the respondent can be held guilty of the matrimonial offence of cruelty as envisaged in Sec. 13(1) (ia) of the Act. In this case not only the petitioner but the respondent has also alleged a number of instances which could amount to cruel treatent to her. However, since it is the petitioner, who is claiming the relief of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, it is the instances of cruel act, conduct and behaviour as set up by him which need to be scrutinised in detail because the success or failure of this petition will largely depend upon those instances of cruelty. The averments and allegations made by the respondent in her defense and if can be said to have been established may be relevant in order to unsuit the petitioner on the premises that he wants to take advantage of his own misdeeds/wrongs."

3. Dealing with Ex. R-1 the letter dated 6.9.1976, the learned AddI. District Judge would observe:-

"This is a typed written letter dated 6.9.1976 and is admittedly singed by the petitioner. In this writing no doubt there is a clear cut admission on the part of the petitioner that the respondent could not be accepted back in the matrimonial home until and unless demand of Rs. 15,000/- is fulfillled by the respondent's side. The petitioner has denied having sent any such letter to the respondent and on the other hand his case is that this is a forged writing having been manufactured by the respondent for the purpose of this petition. The contention of the petitioner cannot be said to be without force because a bare reading of the contents of this letter/writing would cast a serious doubt in anybody's mind that petitioner would have made such a writing. Even otherwise, the other facts and circumstances which have been brought on record would pointedly suggest that this writing could not have been made by the petitioner and in any case of his own accord and volition. I say so because though from the very beginning the case of the respondent was that the petitioner side felt discontented over the dowry and they wanted a sum of Rs.15,000/-to make out the deficiency, still in the notice Ex.P.3 dated 14.6.1978 sent by the respondent to the petitioner, she made no mention of either of this amount or the purpose for which the petitioner was pressing for more money. On the other hand, there is an averment about a demand of Rs.5,500/,Rs.6,000/- etc. Strangely enough this notice contains no mention about the demand of Rs. 15,000/- made by the petitioner to raise the financial status of the petitioner as stated in Ex. R-1. Yet another circumstance which would belie the genuiness of EX.R-1 is that though this was a very material piece of evidence for the purpose of the case under dowry prohibition Act, the respondent for the reasons best known to her did not file it in those proceedings and preserved the same for the purpose of this case."

4. The learned Addl. District Judge held;-

"On a consideration of the entire facts, circumstances and material brought on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the act and conduct of the respondent were such as to have resulted into such mental pain and agony to the petitioner and his parents etc. as to have caused a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it is not safe for him to live in the society f the respondent. To my mind, the petitioner cannot be expected o endure such type of conduct of the respondent. The various acts of commission and omission proved against the respondent would certainly make her liable for the matrimonial offence of cruelty. It must, therefore, be held that the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty after the solemnisation of the marriage. The issue is answered in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner.

5. The learned Addl. District Judge had come to the conclusion on the facts, in my view, rightly that the marriage between the parties had irretrievable broken.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant Ms Geeta Mittal submitted brief written submissions and the learned senior counsel for the respondent Mr. D.K. Kapoor also submitted brief written notes and filed the orders passed by the criminal courts.

7. I have perused the evidence on record and I have read the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge and the written submissions filed by the learned counsel.

8. The learned Addl. District Judge had taken into account relevant aspects and on considering the probabilities of the case had arrived at a conclusion that the appellant was guilty of cruelty. I affirm the findings rendered by the learned Addl. District Judge and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.