IMPORTANT POINT –
Hindu Marriage Act - Cruelty - Held, that the cruel treatment can be inferred from the entire course of conduct and incidents showing display of temperament emotion and perversion by one spouse causing hurt and humiliation to the other - Further held that neither actual nor presumed intention to cause hurt to the other spouse is a necessary element in cruelty. (Case of Sujata Udai Patil v. Udayi Madhukar Patil) – Relied upon. (Para 19)

(Rajiv Sharma, J.) - This FAO is directed against the judgment dated 13.11.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in H.M.A.P. No. 5-K/III/2002.

2.Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the husband’) filed a petition against the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the wife’) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 for the dissolution of their marriage by granting decree of divorce. The parties are Hindus. The marriage was solemnized at village Kulthi, Tehsil and District Kangra according to Hindu rites and customs on 22.4.1983. They lived together for about 16 years and lastly resided at village Nandrool, Tehsil and District Kangra. Three children were borne to them. It is stated that the husband took good care of the wife at different places of posting in the Army, however, she failed to give due respect to him and also treated his family members, including his aged parents with utter disrespect and contempt. She made false and fictitious complaints to the police and Panchayat from time to time. She also alleged that the husband had illicit relation with the wife of his elder brother. These incidents caused immense torture and insult to the husband. The allegations made by her, before the Gram Panchayat, were found to be incorrect. She left matrimonial house in the month of December, 1999 on her own accord. She also filed complaint with the Army authorities. Primarily, the husband has sought dissolution of marriage on the account that the wife had willfully deserted him for continuous period of more than two years and the wife had treated him with cruel physical as well as mental. The petition as resisted by the wife. The allegations contained in the petition were vehemently denied. It is stated in the reply that the husband used to beat her after consuming liquor. She has reported the matter to the Gram Panchayat on 1.3.1996. She has to make complaint to the police and Panchayat since she was getting threats from the possession and his family members. Sh. Jarnail Singh, brother of the husband is working in the local post Office and when she did not get the money orders through the Post Office, she reported the matter to the police authorities. She was given beatings by Jarnail Singh also. In nutshell, her case is that it was due to the circumstances created by her husband and his family members that she has to leave the matrimonial house.

3.The learned District Judge on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues :-

1. “Whether the petitioner has been treated with cruelty by respondent, as alleged? If so, to what effect ? OPP

2. Whether respondent has deserted the petitioner without any cause or excuse, for more than two years? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR

4. Whether the petitioner, by his acts and conduct, estopped to sue? OPR

5. Relief.”

4.The learned District Judge returned the following findings on the issues framed :

Issue No. 1 Yes

Issue No. 2 Yes

Issue No. 3 No.

Issue No. 4 No.

ReliefThe petition is allowed as per operative part of the judgment.

5.Mr. Romesh Verma has strenuously argued that the judgment dated 13.11.2006 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He vehemently argued that it was due to the circumstances created by the husband and his family members that his client was forced to leave the matrimonial house and it cannot be treated as desertion. He further contended that his client has never caused mental or physical agony resulting in cruelty to her husband.

6.Mr. Neeraj Gupta has supported the judgment dated 13.11.2006. He has argued with vehemence that his client has not forced his wife to leave the matrimonial house and she has left the matrimonial house of her own. He has denied the allegations with regard to cruelty.

7.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.PW-1