Kamlesh vs Sh. Kundan Kumar
2002 Latest Caselaw 1429 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Kapoor, J.

1. Heard.

2. Divorce petition of the appellant on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal, the present appeal has been filed.

3. The appellant was married to the respondent on 17th April, 1996 according to the Hindurites and ceremonies. The said marriage was consummated. However, no child was born from the said wedlock. The appellant was treated with cruelty. Prior to the marriage the parents of the appellant were informed that the respondent was earning handsome income and had sufficient means to maintain the appellant and to provide her the necessities of the life. But all these representations were found to be false.

4. The appellant was a research scholar and was getting Rs. 3,500/- per month as scholarship. Even this amount was taken away from her by the respondent and her parents and it was used for meeting household expenses. The respondent and his family members treated the appellant with utmost cruelty and made her life a hell by taunting, abusing and beating her for insufficiency of dowry. The respondent was said to be a man who used to spend lavishly on his bad habits and always used to insist that the appellant must bring money from her parents.

5. In the month of June, 1996, the appellant asked the respondent to take her

for an outing. He got annoyed and asked the appellant to bring more money from her parents, if she wanted to enjoy the luxury of life. On 8th October, 1996, a demand of Rs. 20,000/- was made by the respondent and when she showed her inability to bring the same, she was beaten mercilessly. In the year 1997, the appellant's father came to the matrimonial home of the appellant on the eve of "Diwali" with some sweets and a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. But the respondent pressurised her to demand more money and when the appellant showed her inability, she was beaten mercilessly in presence of her father and brother. She was told that if the demand was not fulfillled, she would not live with him as his wife. She was not even provided food. The respondent had never paid her a single penny for her day-to-day expenses. She was brought back from matrimonial home by her father in the month of July, 2000 and after that the appellant was residing with her parents.

6. The case proceeded ex parte before the learned Trial Court. But the learned Trial Court disbelieved statements of the appellant and her father and decided the matter on an assumption that since the appellant had acquired higher qualification and the respondent seems to be jobless and the appellant wanted to get rid of the respondent by levelling false allegations, and dismissed the petition.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal in the present appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no occasion to draw any such inference and to make such observations for the appellant did try to live with the respondent from the date of marriage on 17th April, 1996 till July, 1999 when she was brought by her father on account of the cruel acts of the respondent and her parents.

8. The appellant in her statement in addition to proving her marriage further stated that immediately after the marriage behavior of the respondent as well as his parents was not good towards her. Parents of the appellant were given wrong impression that the respondent was earning handsome amount and had sufficient means to maintain the appellant. But all the impressions given by the respondent as well as his parents were false. She further stated that the conduct of the parents of the respondent became cruel and there was a persistent demand of dowry articles by respondent and his parents. She came to know within one month of her marriage that the respondent was unemployed and was jobless. She further stated that at the time she was doing research work and was getting a scholarship of Rs. 3,500/-, but even that amount was used by the respondent and his parents for household affairs. In June, 1996, when, she asked the respondent for outings, he refused by saying that her parents had not given sufficient dowry and as such he would not take her for any outing. His behavior towards her was cruel and he used abusive language against her and her parents. Whenever she demanded day-to-day expenses, he gave her physical beating with comments that he had no money for her luxurious life and he could not maintain her because her father had not given dowry articles and cash amount as per his expectation. On October 8th, 1996 the respondent demanded Rs. 20,000/- as cash which was refused by her parents. On refusal, she was beaten mercilessly by the respondent. She always informed her parents about the incidents. But, the respondent never cared about anybody. Her parents tried to reconcile the relations between them but it was all fruitless. In the year 1997, on the occasion of Diwali, her father and brother came to her house with some sweets and cash of Rs. 10,000 /-, but the respondent was not satisfied with gift and sweets brought by her parents and demanded more money. When she showed her inability to fulfill their demands, then the respondent had beaten her in the presence of her father and brother. This act of the respondent caused her mental and physical agony and humiliation before her parents. After the said incident she was also not provided food by the respondent. She was always subjected to humiliation and mental agony and physical torture as well. Since July, 1999, she was living with her parents. She had not condoned the acts of cruelty of the respondent. Her parents and some other relations tried to patch up the matter but the respondent never bothered. There was no collusion between the appellant and the respondent in filing the petition.

9. The father of the petitioner-appellant has supported the appellant. He stated that his son-in-law gave him the impression that he was working with a firm under Japanese Collaboration as a Zonal Manager, but later on, he was found to be jobless at the time of the marriage of his daughter. He also stated that his daughter was doing research work and getting a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month and with that amount his daughter was running the house of the respondent. He further stated that the behavior of the respondent and his parents was not cordial throughout the entire period, his daughter resided with them in the matrimonial home. The respondent and his parents demanded cash, as he had recently retired from his job and got the amount. During her stay in the matrimonial home, the appellant-daughter was given physical beating and starved and given other forms of tortures as the respondent was not satisfied with the dowry given to him at the time of marriage. On 26th January, 1997, on the birthday of the respondent, he gave one shirt and a sum of Rs. 500/- as birthday gift to his son-in-law/respondent. But he was not happy with that gift and there was a demand of cash. In the month of October-November, on the eve of Diwali in the year 1997, he Along with his son went to his daughter's house i.e. her matrimonial home to give her gifts for Diwali, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- Along with fruits, sweets and clothes and when he presented all the items to his daughter, the respondent objected that by saying that, whatever he was giving was nothing for him. He also questioned PW 2 Cyan Chand that what was he giving to the respondent when he had drawn a handsome amount from his retirement. He should have given him a sum of Rs. 50,000/- so that respondent was in a position to do his work. During their stay at the house of his daughter (appellant herein), the respondent gave physical beating to the appellant, when he showed his inability to give Rs. 50,000/-. During the stay of the petitioner/appellant in her matrimonial home the respondent made her life miserable. On several occasions, he intervened between his daughter and son-in-law/respondent, and tried to reconcile their differences with the help of other relatives but the respondent never cared for his daughter and he continued to give physical beating and harassment to his daughter. After the incident of Diwali, his daughter was not provided food by the respondent and was tortured at the hands of the respondent. Ultimately, in the month of July, 1999, he took the appellant to his house, in a pitiable condition as she was tortured and subjected to starvation and beating. Since then she has been residing with him. He also stated that he had made efforts for reconciliation, but they all proved fruitless as the respondent never cared for him or his daughter.

10. It is evident from the above evidence that when the marriage took place both the appellant as well as the respondent, were post-graduates. According to the evidence he was employed with a Japanese Collaboration as a Zonal Manager, but he was found jobless at the time of marriage of the appellant. It is submitted that if this fact was informed, then the appellant, as well as her father, might have thought otherwise. But the misrepresentation continued and that led to the marriage. It is submitted that withholding of the material information amounted to misrepresentation and led to humiliation of the petitioner/appellant in the society. There is no reason to disbelieve the appellant and her father that the appellant was getting Rs. 3,500/- per month, and even that amount was being used not for the purpose of her education and completion of her Ph. D., but for meeting household expenditure of the respondent. This itself amounted to cruelty by putting obstruction in completion of her Ph. D. degree, a natural aspiration in the circumstance. Neither the appellant nor the respondent was an illiterate. Both had post-graduate degrees. If in such circumstances, the respondent demanded money and the appellant was beaten, humiliated and tortured by unwarranted demands time and again with the assistance of the parents of respondent, then this also amounted to physical as well as mental torture amounting to cruelty. Taking Rs. 3,500/-, the amount of scholarship and not even providing food could not be imagined and this is nothing short of cruelty.

11. The fact that the respondent is not interested to have a settled married life, is also borne out of circumstance that the respondent never appeared before the learned Trial Court nor he bothered to appear here in this Court to refute the allegations made against him. One could certainly infer, in such circumstances, that the case of the appellant was not baseless, as learned Trial Court though. It was surely not based on the instinct to get rid of the marriage for the appellant had acquired Ph. D. degree while the respondent was just a post-graduate. One must not ignore the fact that for she continued to live with the respondent bearing all tortures, humiliation and insults at least till July, 1999 despite the fact that the respondent was unemployed. There had to be a limit to test the patience of the appellant to bear.

12. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that the petition has not been filed in collusion and the appellant had not condoned the cruelty, I think the appellant is entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 3(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appeal is allowed accordingly.