Judgment Guman Mal Lodha, J.-An unfortunate feud between the husband & wife has resulted in this matrimonial dispute. The respondent husband has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) alleging therein that he has been a good scholar in bindi literature but got an illiterate wife, who smokes and is habitual for committing thefts so also abusing him. The cruelty was alleged against the wife appellant and, the desertion was also alleged but, the wife-appellant denied all these allegations. It was alleged that it was father-in-law of the respondent husband who managed and paid for his education and this education has proved to be curse because now having been educated at the cost of the wife, he started giving abuses for illiteracy of the lady-wife. It was alleged that the husband was not giving good treatment to the wife.

2. The evidence was recorded and before that, petition for divorce was amended and the same was allowed and some other facts were added.

3. The amendment introduced the additional facts that the wife abused the parents of the husband; that, the wife states that the husband is impotent; that, the husband suffers from T. B. on account of cruelty and bad treatment of wife; and that, the wife has burnt the thesis of the husband. These allegations again, were denied. After recording the evidence, the trial Court has passed a decree of divorce; while granting maintenance, allowed Rs. 200/-per month as maintenance. The wife has filed against the divorce and the husband has filed cross objection against the maintenance.

4. The detailed arguments were heard of the panics and they were allowed time to file written arguments also, for which they have prayed jointly. Attempt to settlement between the parties failed and, hence there is no alternative but to proceed with the judgment. The trial Court has not accepted the allegation of the desertion and it was not pressed by the husband. However, it has come to the conclusion that the husband has proved the cruelty of the wife against the husband.

5. ShriS.M. Jain, the learned Counsel for the appellant-wife-Shanti, pointed out that earlier allegations in the original divorce petition were limited to the desertion and cruelty was only based on the ground that the wife

was illiterate and she smoked bidis and she was also in habit of committing thefts and abusing. Shri Jain pointed out that these allegations are too bald and sweeping, vague, insignificant and insufficient to dissolve the marriage in the Hindu society under the Act. Shri Jain pointed out that the issues were framed in April, 1978 and many opportunities were afforded to the husband-respondent to lead evidence but instead of leading evidence, he produced amendment application alleging that the earlier evidences produced were not sufficient for the defence. In substance, that evidence was cooked up and concocted one.

6. Shri Jain argued that the oral evidence is of the relatives of the husband and is of no importance and, that also suffers from improbabilities and the witnesses are chance witnesses. Shri Jain also argued that even though there was some delay, and if what respondent says is correct it is liable to be condoned under Section 23 of the Act. Shri Jain pointed out that the plea of desertion and cruelty are inconsistent Shri Jain again pointed out that the allegation that the husband had some relation with some other lady, cannot be termed as cruelty, and no issue was framed on this aspect of the case.

7. The above submissions made by Shri Jain on behalf of the appellant-wife have been controverted by Shri

C.G. Sharma, appearing for the respondent-husband. Shri Sharan argued that, undoubtedly it is an unfortunate case but, the marriage is a broken one and nothing can be done now in view of the serious cruelty of the wife. Shri Sharma pointed out that earlier, issue No. 3 was framed regarding illicit it relation of his client with one girl - M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document