Delhi High Court
Lalit Kumar vs Mamta on 11 May, 2010
Author: Aruna Suresh
* 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
