RITA Vs. BRIJ KISHORE GANDHI
LAWS(DLH)-1983-11-19
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on November 10,1983

RITA Appellant
VERSUS
BRH KISHORE GANDHI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SATINDER LAL GUPTA VS. SWAMA LATA GUPTA [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

SANTANA BANERJEE VS. SACHINDRA NATH BANERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1989-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
GEETHA VS. MOHAN [LAWS(KER)-1991-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH BURMAN VS. MITUL CHATTERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-107] [REFERRED TO]
KHADEEJA NARGEES VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-593] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M. L. JAIN J. - (1.)The respondent husband is employed in the Reserve Bank of India at Jaipur, while the appellant wife in the Food Corporation of India at Delhi. The parties were married on 2-3-1978 at Delhi. The wife filed a petition No. 5180 for divorce under sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) on 10-1-1980 on the ground of treatment with cruelty. It appears that the husband also filed a petition No. 61j80 under sec,.9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. By his order of 22-7-1980, the trial Judge declined to consolidate the two petitions and continued to proceed with the wife's petition and eventually dismissed it on 26-8-1982. Hence, this appeal by the wife.
(2.)The wife alleged in her petition that soon after the marriage, the mother-in-law started complaining about the dowry. However, on 819-1978 the couple left for Simla and stayed there for about four days, where she discovered that the husband was a drunkard. He also complained that her parents did not give him any TV, fidge or scooter, etc. and gave her filthy abuses. On the third day when she asked, him to refrain from drinking, he shouted and beat her. He also told her that he could not live without drink and was married without his consent. The next day, they returned to Delhi. The husband went back to Jaipur. On 13114-4-1978 he came to Delhi to her house at about 6.00 p.m. in a drunken side. He demanded her salary for the month of March 1978, On. her refusal to part with the money, he took out a bottle of wine of from. his pocket and began to drink in the presence of the neighbours who had come to visit her parents. He and abused her and her parents and gave her severe beatings. Her parents and the visitors rescued her. Thereafter, he left 'the house. Yet, the wife went to Jaipur on 15-5-1978 and lived with him till 11-6-1978, but found no change in him. and came back to Delhi. On 15-7-1978 the husband came to the house of her parents and started drinking. He demanded Rs 2000. She told him that she had no money. Thereupon, the husband slapped her and gave fists and blows. She became unconscious. She was rescued by Dr. P. R. Chibba. Despite this she again visited Jaipur on 12-8-1978, but she was turned out by the husband on 15-8-1978 after giving her a severe beating and retaining all her jewellery, clothes and other articles.
(3.)In his written statement, the husband alleged that the petition was filed after an inordinate delay of 1-112 years. The wife herself withdrew from the society of the husband. He denied that he was a.drunkard. He also denied the allegation of beating and demand of dowry. He denied the occurrence that was alleged to have taken place at Simla. After .return from Simla he wanted his wife to accompany him to Jaipur, but she did not agree. He denied to have visited her parents ' house on 13114-4-1978. As per mutual arrangement, she obtained leave and came to live with him in Jaipur from 15-5-1978 to 11-6-1978. They lived happily, but she, had to return because she could not extend her leave. He denied-that he visited her parents' house On 15/16-7-l978 and Made a demand of Rs. 2000 and gave beating to her. He maintained that the visit of the wife to Jaipur from 12-8-1978 to 15-8-1978 was in the normal course arid her journey was paid for by him. He denied that he retained her jeweller .and other articles. He alleged that her parents had on the contrary removed surreptitiously all his jewellery and ornaments worth. Rs. .60.000. There was no cruelty in the first instance and if there was any, it stood condoned, because even after 15-8-1978 the parties have been cohabiting and living together. As a matter of fact. before the marriage it was agreed that the wife would live with him arid will get herself transferred to Jaipur or leave her job. But on one pretext or the other, she neither left the job nor got herself transferred to Jaipur and pressed him to seek his own transfer. Her father was a drunkard arid had an evil eye on his income and -property. He, -however, submitted an application for his transfer to Delhi even though it meant a loss of promotion. But he could not succeed. It was also alleged that she wanted to marry a boy -for whom she had a liking even before her marriage. To enable her to do so she suggested that the marriage be dissolved by consent. He prayed that the petition be dismissed and his wife and the jewellery and other articles be restored to him.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.