Gauri Shankar Dhanwaria vs Mrs. Maya Devi
2003 Latest Caselaw 1132 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2002 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge whereby the petition of the appellant for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was dismissed. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:

Marriage between the parties was performed according to Hindu rites and customs on 15.2.1997. From the wedlock of the parties, one male child was born on 9.11.1998. Alleging that the respondent had treated him with cruelty, the appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the allegations as contained in the petition. Some details of the alleged acts of cruelty were given in the petition. Paragraphs 4 to 24 of the petition narrating incidents of the alleged cruelty read as under: -

4. That from the very beginning of the marriage, the respondent showed disinclination to settle in the matrimonial home. The petitioner tried very hard to break down the resistance, thinking she was shy but every time the petitioner tried to approach the respondent she projected herself to be of higher status and better family than the petitioner and blatantly said that she had made a mistake in marrying so low, as against the many good offers coming her way. It was only on the petitioner insistence that the marriage was consummated.

5. On 15th May, 1997, the petitioner coming to his room was aghast on finding the respondent trying to slit her writs with a knife which he managed to wrench away. He also found scattered tiny pieces of torn photographs and even on persistent questioning the respondent refused to disclose the particulars of the photographs and only kept repeating that she had made a big mistake in marrying the petitioner. The petitioner was very saddened by this, nevertheless he consoled her and promised her that he would try to live up to her expectations.

6. That on 18.05.1997, the petitioner took the respondent to Appu Ghar where the respondent picked up a fight in front of other visits stating that she was unable to travel in buses and the petitioner should buy a scooter. When the petitioner informed her that he was unable to afford a scooter, and all good things of life would come by and by, she stated that her brother Tikaram earned Rs.7,000/- per month which he gave to his wife and since all the respondents friends inquired from her about her husband's (the petitioner) salary; she felt very small and ashamed of the petitioner as he was only an office assistant. She also said she was used to eating food cooked in Ghee and not oil, as was the case in the petitioner's house. The petitioner was horrified and felt small and fallen in his own eyes. The petitioner asked the respondent why had she agreed to marry him since his official and residential status was well known to the respondent and her family and all the residents of the area, since they belonged to the same locality, but, the respondent cried to bitterly that the petitioner was forced to hire a three wheeler and bring the respondent home.

7. That on 10.06.1997 when the petitioner was returning home from work he was accosted by the respondent's cousin Ms.Krishna who inquired of the petitioners well being and asked if the respondent had settled down. She informed the petitioner that the respondent had an emotionally unstable mind and had already suffered one broken relationship on account of her erratic conduct. The petitioner was perturbed and not knowing what to make of this voluntary disclosure he brushed away the said lady. He returned home to find his wife sleeping on the bed with a long face and on asking as to why she was sitting separately and not with the other family members watching television the respondent rudely shouted at the petitioner that she was used to watching colour television and had she know that she was marrying into a beggars house who could afford only a black and white television she would have run away from the marriage pandal itself. The petitioner then told the respondent of his chance meeting with the said Ms.Krishna but on hearing this the respondent suddenly become hysterical and started beating the petitioner with fists and blows. On hearing the commotion the petitioner's parents rushed up to their room and the respondent threatened that she would cause physical hurt upon herself and summon the police to teach a lesson to the petitioner and his family members, the way her Bhabhi Neelam had done with her brother Tikaram and other members of her family including herself. The petitioner was dismayed and cried out not knowing what he had done to deserve such a fate in his life.

8. On the morning of 11 June, 1997 the respondent informed the petitioner she wished to return to her parental home for holiday and without taking leave of the petitioner or the petitioner's parents she packed her bag and left the house.

On 20.06.1997 the petitioner's family was surprised to see the respondent standing at the door step, on entering the house she took the petitioner aside and told him that she had made the necessary arrangements with her brother G.D. (Ghansham Dass) who arranged fictitious bank loans and was also involved in money racketing to make petitioner his partner so that the petitioner could also earn money to provide the respondent with a better life style. The petitioner was horrified at hearing this and stated that he would not involve himself in any illegal activity and he could only provide the respondent with three square meals, the roof over her head and a reasonable good life which would get better with time and with which she should be satisfied. The respondent there and then started quarreling with the petitioner. When the petitioner's mother tried to intervene, the respondent pushed her violently and the old lady's head banged against the wall. The petitioner sent his younger brother Hemchand to the respondent's house to summon her brothers to counsel the respondent but instead the respondent's mother came and she instead of reprimanding the respondent consoled the petitioner that her daughter was of tender mind and would mend her ways if she had a child and she implored the petitioner that the brothers of the respondent of their wives should not hear and what had transpired.

On 24.06.1997 the respondent once again packed her bags and returned to her parental home where she stayed till 29.06.1997. Through out this period whenever the petitioner tried to meet the respondent, he was not allowed to do so by the brothers of the respondent.

9. On 29.06.1997, Chainsukh one of the brothers of the respondent brought the respondent back to the matrimonial house stating that she would now live amicably with the rest of the family.

10. Since then the petitioner noted the respondent always had a sullen face and remained withdrawn and on inquiring she would always retort that she was suffering from pain in her whole body. The petitioner never joined the mother of the petitioner or his sister in doing any household chores and would always remain locked in her room on the terrace. On coming out of his room in the evening after work, many times the petitioner would notice the respondent standing on the terrace and signaling to someone in the lane below. When the petitioner questioned her behavior and said that it did not behave a married lady of status, to engage in conversation with passerby the respondent began crying loudly and resorted to her show of tantrums which had by now become so frequent that the petitioner was scared to even approach her.

11. On 02.07.1997 Tika Ram the brother of the respondent came to the petitioner's house and threatened the petitioner to keep his sister happy in the manner she desired or less he would implicate them in false police case as his brother G.D. (Ghansham Das) enjoyed great favor with the local police.

12. Thereafter, it became a routine that one or the other of the respondent's brothers would come to the petitioner's home and threaten him and his parents to keep the respondent happy or else they would suffer dire consequences. The petitioner and his family began living in dread of these unexpected threats and visits.

13. That with every visit of the respondent's brothers, the respondent became bolder and more brash in her attitude towars the petitioner and her family members. She openly abused the petitioner's mother and sister and would not even offer a glass of water to the petitioner's father. He role of the tormentor grew to such an extent that all the petitioner's family members started living in awe of her as her displeasure would carry with it the wrath of the respondent's brother and threats of police action.

14. On 05.07.1997 the petitioner's mother was surprised to receive an invitation from the respondent's mother to visit the house to take over matters concerning the petitioner and the respondent. On reaching the respondent's maternal house, the mother of the petitioner was greeted rudely by Anita, the Bhabhi of the respondent and when the petitioner's mother turned to move away, the respondent's brother G.D. Physically pulled her into the room and slapped her hard saying that this was one of the way to settle scores with the petitioner.

15. That on hearing the raised voices all neighbours began peeping out of their houses and some came forward to help the crying and distraught old lady return her house. When the petitioner inquired from the respondent why her brother behaved in this manner, she said that any time she felt like, she would get petitioner's mother beaten up, and if he wanted to save her he would join her brother G.D. in his illegal activities, make money so that the respondent could live a life of leisure, and uplift her status and not be ashamed to show her face to her family and friends for her mistake of having married a peon. The respondent would always tried to convince the petitioner into wrong and illegal acts to earn money saying that it was the only first time which was difficult and thereafter the petitioner would get so used to easy money that he would not think twice and that her brother G.D. was holding many police men in his pocket and the petitioner would be fully protected against the law. The petitioner began to feel scared and intimidated by the said brother and withdrew to himself so much so that he was scared to even go to work lest he met any of the respondent's brothers on the way.

16. The respondent took all the more advantage of this fear psychoses and would press in her every demand with the backdrop of threats from her brothers. She now began to pressure the petitioner to influence his parents to transfer the house in the name of the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent even want to the extent of visiting prospective in-laws of the petitioner's sister in an effort to break up the alliance. This unsettled atmosphere grew to an extent whereby all neighbours and person of the locality began discussing the issue openly and the petitioner and his family felt ashamed and humiliated in the eyes of their neighbours and friends whose respect they had enjoyed for many years.

17. The elder of the locality Shri Rampal Mohanpuria counselled the respondent that her and her brother's behavior was not conducive to her happy settlement in the matrimonial home. In front of him, the respondent expressed regret and seemingly wrote out an apology/letter to Shri Rampal Mohanpuria asking for his help in the settlement.

18. That Shri Mohanpuria forwarded the said letter dated 06.07.1997 to the Police Station, Prasad Nagar and pursuant to which a Head Constable came to investigate the matter on 16.08.1997. The respondent gave a written statement as also the mother of the petitioner and the matter was compromised.

19. That on 22.10.1997 the respondent's brother stormed the house of the petitioner. They manhandled the petitioner's old parents and pushed aside the petitioner saying that if anyone of them even raised a voice they would get the petitioner's sister picked up and she would suffer unimaginably horrible consequences. Then they all proceeded to ransack the house and demanded the respondent to pack whatsoever she desired and leave with them which the respondent complied leaving behead only some furniture that she could not carry and the petitioner was left standing shocked and stupefied.

20. That on 17.11.1997 the petitioner was shocked to receive summons from the Crime Against Women Cel, Thana Prasad Nagar for a hearing ficed on 24.11.1997. Various hearings brought about a compromise by which the petitioner was forced into agreeing to take the respondent to live separate in a rented accommodation. In an effort to save is marriage and the fear that his old parents would suffer at the hands of the police in a mix-up with the respondent's brother the petitioner agreed to the compromise dictated by the respondent and her brothers.

21. That in or around January, 1998 the petitioner took up residence in a rented accommodation, which he could ill-afford. But, the pressure put on him by the brothers of the respondent via the Police Station Prasad Nagar was so severe that he continued to suffer out of fear that any action on his part to displease the respondent or his brothers would bring upon his old parents the wrath of the respondent's brothers and the police.

That around March, 1998 the respondent discovered to her dismay that she was pregnant and began insisting for an abortion. This time the petitioner remained adamant thinking that a child between them might lead to a better relationship and motherhood would bring some grace to the respondent. To his utter surprise the respondent agreed and it was only much later that she disclosed that she was bearing the child not because of the petitioner but as her brothers had counselled her that with a child her hold on the petitioner would increase manifold.

22. That in August, 1998 the petitioner shifted back to his parents house as the cost of living and rent etc. left no money for fulfilllment of the demands of the respondent during the difficult days of her pregnancy and her insistence to deliver the baby in Safdarjung Hospital.

23. Moreover, the respondent projected that she could not cope with the house work and wanted to be close to her maternal home which is in the vicinity of the petitioner's house little did the petitioner realise that was a ploy on the respondent's part to use the child as a bait for satisfaction of her demands for money and transfer of the property of the petitioner's parents in the name of herself and the minor child. The petitioner was non-pulsed.

24. That on 10.11.1998 the respondent left the matrimonial home with the threat that the house be transferred in the name of herself and the minor child Kunal or else the petitioner joint the respondent's brother G.D. in his business as the respondent could no longer live a life of poverty. The same day she lodged a report with the Prasad Nagar Thana, New Delhi and the petitioner was once again summoned to sign a compromise on behalf of himself and his wife. Thereafter, the respondent returned to her matrimonial home and on 12.11.1999 the petitioner was amazed at the appearance of an strange lady who claimed to be the neighbour of the respondent and who unceremoniously dumped the minor child Kunal at the door step of the petitioner mousa Shri Naitram who was a shop below the petitioner house saying that the petitioner and her family should keep their dirty blood to themselves as the respondent Maya Devi wanted to lead a life free of all encumbrances.

2. Despite service of summons upon the respondent, she did not appear before the Court and was, accordingly, proceeded ex-parte. Ex-parte evidence of the appellant was recorded by the tribunal but the same was not found by the tribunal to be sufficient to prove that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty and the petition was, accordingly, dismissed.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that since the respondent had been proceeded ex-parte, the statement made by the appellant before the Matrimonial Court had gone un-rebutted and the same was sufficient to hold that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty and the appellant was thus entitled to the grant of divorce.

4. The appellant when he appeared as a witness before the Matrimonial Court had stated that on 15.5.1997 when he was sitting in his room and was seeing the photographs of his marriage, his wife entered the room and torn away the photographs. It is further stated by him that on 18.5.1997, he along with respondent went to Appu Ghar where she in front of many persons told him that she was not used to travel by buses and wanted to have lunch in some good hotel. The appellant was not in a position to afford all that and they came back home from Appu Ghar by hiring a scooter and the appellant was thus very upset with her behavior. He further stated that the respondent was in the habit of going to her parent's home frequently without informing him. It is stated that on 5.7.1997 he and his parents were called at the residence of his parents where his mother was allegedly beaten by the brother of the respondent. The appellant, accordingly, lodged a complaint on 6.7.1997 with Prasad Nagar, Police Station. It is further stated that on 10.10.1997, the brother of the respondent came to the residence of the appellant and took away all the costly items, jewellery and clothes, which were prepared by the appellant and his parents for his sister's marriage. All these acts according to the appellant clearly amounted to cruelty.

5. Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act - any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either of the spouse, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty. Before the amendment of the Act in 1976, it was required by the petitioner to prove not only that he/she has been treated by his/her spouse with cruelty but cruelty was of such a nature that it would be injurious for him/her to live with his/her spouse. The words that "living with the spouse would be injurious to his/her health because of the cruelty inflicted by such spouse" have been omitted by the amendment of the Act in 1976. All that has now to be proved is that the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty. It is not necessary for the party to prove that the cruelty complained of was such a nature as would cause a reasonable apprehension in his/her mind that it will be harmful for him/her to live with the other party. It is in this background that the courts are required to examine whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent so as to entitle him to get a decree of divorce.

6. The fact that the mother of the appellant was beaten by the brother of the respondent and the respondent had not, in any manner, interfered or prevented his brother from doing the same, in my opinion, is clearly an act of mental cruelty upon the appellant. Tearing away the marriage photographs in rage may also amount to an act of cruelty. Admonishing the husband in public while they had gone to Appu Ghar would also amount to an act of cruelty. In a Hindu Society one can imagine the humiliation and shame suffered by the petitioner when his mother is beaten in his presence at the instance of his wife. Cumulatively all these acts, in my opinion, were sufficient to return a finding in favor of the appellant that the respondent has treated him with cruelty and the appellant was thus entitled to the grant of divorce. I, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, allow this appeal and further allow the petition of the appellant and dissolve the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.