Cruelty - Allegations that there were occasional outburst of anger, rude language or austerity of tamper, may amount to misconduct but cannot be termed as cruelty.

Ranjit Singh, J.

1. Sunil Kumar is in appeal against the judgment dated 2.2.1999 passed by the District Judge, Gurdaspur whereby the petition filed by him seeking dissolution of the marriage has been dismissed. This marriage, which had been solemnised on 10.9.1983, was consummated and continued for some time leading to the birth of a son named Karan and a daughter named Kanika. At the time of filing the divorce petition, the son and daughter named above were aged about nine and seven years respectively. The appellant-husband had filed this divorce petition alleging that the respondent-wife had treated him extreme cruelty. To support of the allegations, he appellant-husband had averred that the respondent-wife did not want to live with his parents stationed at Jammu and running timber business. Appellant complains that the respondent-wife used filthy and insulting language towards him as well as his parents, friends and relations. He has disclosed that in this background he had filed one divorce petition on 26.4.1984. However, on account of the intervention of the mother of the respondent-wife, that petition was got dismissed in default on 23.7.1986. Thereafter, the parties to the marriage lived together at Jammu till 1989, before shifting to Pathankot. It is further disclosed that in 1988, the father of the appellant died and he then started business of ready made garments. As per the appellant, the respondent-wife used to keep the kitchen dirty, which gave wrong impression in the mind of the children. He has stated that she used to leave the house without informing the appellant and was in the habit of using filthy language even in the middle of night. On one occasion, the respondent-wife had approached the police and the local MLA. It was then agreed upon that the children would live with the respondent-wife and rent will be paid by the appellant. A sum of Rs. 1 lac was also deposited in the name of the respondent-wife and children so that the interest amount could be used for maintenance.

2. The respondent-wife, however contested the petition filed by the appellant-husband. She alleged that the appellant-husband had turned her out from the house after maltreating her. She also submitted that she was tortured for bringing less dowry.

3. On these pleadings, the trial followed. The appellant-husband examined four witnesses besides himself appearing in support of the allegations. On the other hand, the respondent-wife appeared herself and examined three more witness in support of her stand. Having regard to the pleadings and the evidence, the main issue framed by the Court was whether the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the cruelty was not established. Court had rightly observed that the allegations of cruelty relating to the period prior to the year 1989 was not relevant as the earlier divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband on the basis of said allegations and the grounds had been got dismissed in default. It is on record that thereafter the parties had stayed together and cohabited till 1989. Accordingly, even if there were some instances, which gave indication of cruelty, the same stood condoned by the conduct of the appellant and hence, could not be taken into consideration. These were rightly required to be ignored from the evidence and consideration. The trial Court accordingly dismissed the petition of the husband for grant of divorce, against which he is now in appeal.

4. From the orders passed in this case, it appears that the case was argued earlier on 28.5.2003 and submissions as made by the respective counsel appearing on behalf of the patties were noticed. It would be appropriate to take notice of these submissions, which have been almost repeated before me. It can be seen that the issues were almost appreciated but the case was adjourned to make another effort for reconciliation between the parties. I he case was adjourned from time to time fo