Full Judgment
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against the dismissal of a divorce petition filed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
2. Before commencement of the hearing, I asked the parties, who were present in Court, whether reconciliation was possible and while the respondent-wife was willing to return to the matrimonial home, the husband was not agreeable.
Marriage between the parties took place on 15.8.1982. A son was born out of this wedlock who is living with the respondent-wife. The husband filed a divorce petition on 29.9.1994 alleging, Inter alia, that the wife had wrongly represented that she was 29/30 years at the time of marriage white in fact, she was 38-39 years that time; the husband filed a petition for annulment of marriage but he withdrew the same on the intervention of the respectable; the wife dragged the husband into constant litigation and filed a petition 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 19.4.1984; she filed a complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code; she filed a petition before the District Magistrate for permission to prosecute the-husband and his family members; she got the husband detained in a false complaint for the whole night, she made complaints to the higher authorities; the husband was called by the police on a complaint of the wife; the husband had to shift his house on account of harassment by the wife as she was unable to pull on with the husband as well as the neighbours, the wife called her mother to live in the house of the husband and the husband had to live in the school premises where he was working and on 25.6.1991, the wife left the matrimonial home; a complaint dated 29.7.1994 was made to the Director, Public Instructions, U.T. Chandigarh alleging that the husband was having illicit relations with one Madhu; earlier she had levelled allegation of illicit relations with the mother of Madhu which tarnished his image; the wife made false allegations for claiming maintenance and she suspected the character of the husband. The wife contested the petition and submitted, inter alia, that the husband had been demanding dowry, he did not turn up to see the child when the child was bom and she had to seek maintenance; she had to seek permission for prosecution under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act and to file a complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code; she had also to make a complaint to the Istri Sabha and to the concerned authorities.
3. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on the record dismissed the divorce petition holding that the husband had not been able to prove the allegations of cruelty and desertion. It was observed that the husband wanted to get rid of the wife just one year after the marriage and in August, 1983 itself he had filed divorce petition and the wife's conduct has to be seen in the light of bitter feelings and conduct of the husband; the husband admitted that he kept the wife with him against his own wishes, the evidence of the witnesses of the husband was not trust-worthy; there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of the wife, namely, the evidence of RW-3 Sheela Sehgal, RW-4 Pushpa Nandan and RW-5 Yog Raj.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following suomissions:-
i) Mark 'B', a copy of the petition for custody of the child should not be taken into account;
ii) Exhibit PE, a copy of the report of inquiry by the Istri Sabha at page 22 of the record should not be taken into account;
iii) evidence of RW3 Sheela Sehgal and RW4 Pushpa Nandan should not be taken into account;
iv) Copy of the complaint to the Istri Sabha, exhibit PX was not given to the husband and the same should not be taken into account;
v) Evidence of PW2 Ramesh Pal, PW3 Om Parkash Vermani, PW4 Ajay Kumar Sharma and PW5 Shankar Dass was reliable and the complaints filed by the wife to various authorities i.e. Exhibit D.1, the complaint made to the Superintendent of Police, Exhibit P-1, the complaint made to the Director Public Instructions U.T. Chandigarh and complaints Exhibits P-2, P-3 and P-4 to other authorities clearly show that the husband was treated with cruelty. Counsel also referred to the order Exhibit P-8 passed by the District Magistrate refusing to grant sanction for prosecution of the husband and the order Exhibit P-9 passed in dowry proceedings, which was in favour of the husband.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the following decisions in support of his submissions:-
V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagal (Mrs.), (1994) SCC337; M.K. Mathotra v. Kirti Malhotra, 1987(1) H.L.R. 1999; Harendra Nath Burman v. Smt. Suprova Burman and Anr., 1989(1) H.L.R. 228; Vinod Kumar Sharma v. Nutan Sharma, 1986(1) H.L.R. 625; and Raj Bharti (Mrs.) v. Ashok Kumar Begwani, 1989(1) H.L.R. 726.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings of the trial court and submitted that the trial court rightly rejected the husband's version and rightly accepted the evidence led by the wife that the wife's allegations were substantiated and did not amount to cruelty. Counsel submitted that the order refusing sanction for prosecution of the husband did not establish that the allegations of the wife were false or that her filing of the complaints amounted to cruelty. Counsel further submitted that the finding of the trial court was based on evidence and the trial court was justified in refusing to draw the inference of cruelty having regard to the circumstances of the case and, particularly, the conduct of the husband in attempting to get rid of the wife immediately after the marriage. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the decisions cited by the counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. I find no force in the contention of the appellant that the document Mark 'B' and Exhibit PE should not be taken into account or that the evidence of RW3 Sheela Sehgal or that of RW4 Pushpa Nandan should be rejected. I also do not find any reason to believe the version of the husband and the evidence produced by him, which has been rightly rejected by the trial court with detailed reasons recorded in its judgment. On the facts of the present case, inference of cruelty cannot be drawn. Conduct of the husband clearly shows that he wanted to get rid of the wife and was not interested in looking after the wife and the child. On account of such conduct, the wife had to resort to complaints to redress her grievances. The allegations by the wife about the illicit relations of the husband have been held to be substantiated and even if no categorical finding is recorded on such allegations, the allegations cannot be said to be false or frivolous. In the circumstances of the case, the allegations of the wife cannot be said to amount to cruelty. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
9. For the above reasons, this appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order asto costs.