- (1.) THIS is a husband's appeal from the judgement and decree of the District Judge Meerut, dated 28 -10 - 1976 allowing the wife's appeal in a petition for divorce and decreeing the same. The petition was filed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
(2.) PARTIES are Brahmins by caste. They were married according to Hindu rites on 24 -11 -1962. The appellant was 26 and the respondent 22 years of age at the time of marriage. Their fathers were high placed officers in the Education Department. The appellant's father was the Principal of the Government College at Nainital while the respondent's father was an officer posted at Lucknow. Their traditional faith in religion and its rituals is not in doubt. The appellant's parents were conservative in views and had an orthodox way of living. The appellant at the time of marriage, was an Assistant Conservator of Forest while the respondent was a student of the M.B.B.S. When the respondent's father approached the appellant's father for the marriage of his daughter with his son, the appellant's father, an educationist with views very set in domestic living, made it plain to the respondent's father that the advanced studies of his daughter in medicine would not be permitted to be utilized by her for a profession or service career in medicine. The respondent's father consulted his family and again approached the appellant's father with his proposal for marriage. It was accepted and the marriage was performed according to Hindu rites on 24 -11 -1962. The parties bound themselves into a sacred wedlock and promised to remain united. None of them could then imagine that one would get sick of the other and seek for a release. But living, as we do, in an era of disintegration and growing disillusionment this marriage could not last long. The fault does not appear to lie much with the parties. The case unfolds a story of unhealthy relations between the mother -in -law and the daughter -in -law, a feature not uncommon in families in this country. The respondent's complaint is that she was ill -treated by her mother -in -law and the husband did not intervene, hence she could not live with him. To resume the narration of events, the respondent, after her marriage, went to Nainital with her husband where they lived in the Government accommodation provided to the husband's father who was the Principal of the Government College. The husband and wife lived together from 26 -11 -1962 to 30 -11 -1962. The respondent then returned to her parents. She wrote to her husband on 17 -12 -1962 referring to the consummation of marriage besides many other nice things. Her next visit to her husband was around 18th May of 1963. She lived with him till 23rd August, 1963. They were at Nainital from 18th May, 1963 to the Ist week of July, 1963 and thereafter at Delhi where the appellant's father had a house. The respondent then left for her parents. She went to her husband on 22nd November, 1963. They lived together from 22nd November, 1963 to 7th October. 1964 at different places where the appellant had to go on tour. During this period, the appellant's father died on 25th May, 1964. The appellant's mother thereafter lived with his son. The respondent returned to her parents after 7th October, 1964. She joined the M.D. Course at Kanpur in January 1965 and also took up a job as a Demonstrator in the Medical College. This was not liked by her husband. He belonged to a conservative family. The respondent appeared to be forward in views. The relations between the mother -in -law and the daughter -in -law did not appear to be happy. The mother -in -law often criticised the respondent about her living habits and sometimes rebuked her as well. This is indicated in the respondent's letter dated 19th May, 1964 (Ext. A -1) to her husband in which she said that the reproaches of her mother -in - law were instructive but what she did not like was his indifference to them. The respondent came to her husband in July, 1965 and lived with him at Meerut till 29th of November, 1965. She finally went back to her parents on 30th of November, 1965, never to return to her marital home. The respondent's case was that her mother -in -law was greatly dissatisfied with the dowry given by her parents and she was so annoyed that she never allowed the appellant to meet the respondent or permitted them to live as husband and wife. She had a complete hold on her son and it was alleged that even in her first visit to her marital home the respondent was not allowed to meet her husband and live with him with the result that the marriage was never consummated. The subsequent visits also ended in the same fashion, and the parties never enjoyed a marital life. The respondent was treated as an out - caste and was required to cook meals for the family, clean the utensils, wash the clothes, dust the floors and work like a maid servant, and the mother -in -law was all the time nagging at her and calling her names. During the lifetime of her father -in -law it was alleged that there was some restraint on the mother -in -law but after his death she became unbearable. This ruined her health. She made complaints to her husband but he showed his inability to intervene as he could not offend his mother. Lack of affection for the wife is not pleaded. What is complained of his weakness to stand up against his mother. It was alleged that she had been impressing upon the appellant that she was a full -fledged doctor and to what use was her education if she was to live like a house -maid. Her complaint was that her husband had neither the will nor the mind to change things. and she had to go back to her parents many times. Even after her visit to the matrimonial home in July, 1965 and till she went back to her parents in November, 1965 she did not find any change in the behaviour of her mother -in -law or the attitude of her husband. She had thus been treated with cruelty by them since her marriage till her final departure to her parents. Her further complaint was that after she had left on 30th November, 1965, the appellant never called on her to bring her back. It is stated that in March, 1966 he went to Kanpur and contacted her on telephone. He asked her to leave the M.D. Course and return to him, but, on a request to have a face -to -face talk at her father's place, he did not go to meet her. It is further stated that the appellant did not attend the marriage of the respondent's younger sister in 1966 and avoided meeting her or her parents. Efforts for reconciliation made on her behalf failed. The respondent, accordingly, was driven to the filing of this petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion - cruelty consisting of the ill -treatment meted out to her by her mother -in -law and the appellant's apathy to intervene, and the desertion consisting of the appellant's living away from the respondent and severing his connections from her since November, 1965.
(3.) THE appellant denied the charges and controverted the allegations. His case was that the parties were married according to Hindu rites and their marriage was indissoluble, that the appellant had always discharged his marital obligations towards his wife, and was deeply attached to her, that he had never withheld his affection or sympathy from her. His parents also treated her with care and affection. It was alleged that after their marriage, the parties went to Nainital, were they lived as husband and wife in the Government accommodation allotted to the appellant's father. THE respondent was provided with all the amenities and facilities for a comfortable living as could be made available according to the status and position of the appellant's father. THE respondent had a separate room, and the parties had a free and full marital life. THE respondent was fully satisfied and had written to him nicely referring to the consummation of the marriage. She had no complaint to make about either anything or anybody. In her subsequent visits also, she was treated cordially and the appellant's mother had never given her any ill - treatment; nor had she ever interfered in the conjugal life of the parties. THE accusations made against her were false and were so made only for the purpose of the petition. It was alleged that the respondent was always keep to pursue her studies in medicine. THE appellant and his parents were opposed to it. THE views of the appellant's family did not suit the respondent's family did not suit the respondent. She did not give vent to her feelings during the lifetime of the appellant's father but after his death, she found it convenient to medicine. She joined the M.D. course in the Medical Collage at Kanpur and also took up a job there. THE appellant greatly resented the respondent's move and asked her to come back and took after her home. She, however, had no regard or respect for his views or sentiments and declined to alter her plans. THE appellant visited Kanpur her plans around Holi in March 1966, talked to her on telephone and tried to persuade her to come back to her marital home but with no success. He did not go to his father -in -law as his relations with him were strained and he felt embarrassed in going to him. He had not even cared to invite the appellant in the marriage of his second daughter. According to the appellant, he had always been very affectionate to the respondent and had never uttered even an unkind word to her. He had produced in court a number of letters written by her to him, which he had preserved, in her to him, which he had preserved, in token of his love and affection for her. THE appellant alleged that he had been making constant efforts to bring back the respondent since Nov. 1965 but she declined to return to the marital home. It was pleaded that the petition was belated and was also otherwise not maintainable. During the course of the trial before the learned Civil Judge, the appellant made an offer to the respondent that he would separate his mother from him so that her grievances, if any, may be alleviated and she may come back to her marital home but the respondent refused the offer and declined to come back. The trial court also made attempts for a reconciliation but the same failed as the respondent was adamant not to go back to the appellant. The court then decided the petition on merits and dismissed the same holding that no case of either cruelty or desertion was made out against the appellant. It found that the parties were married according to Hindu rites; that they had lived as husband and wife without any interference by the appellant's mother in their conjugal life, which they had enjoyed freely; that the marriage had been consummated in the first visit of the respondent to the marital home, that the mother -in -law had not treated the respondent with cruelty, that the accusation made against her as regards the cleaning of the utensils, the washing of the clothes and being treated as a hose -maid were wholly wrong. It appeared to the trial court that the mother -in -law had required the respondent to discharged her household duties in the manner, the old school people do and she had also tried to train her in that direction, thinking she could do so being a mother -in -law, but the respondent resented the same. She was highly educated and modern in views. The differences appeared to the learned Judge were part of life and a mere wear and tear for which no marriage could be broken particularly when no serious allegation had been made against the appellant except that he was too weak to stand up against his mother. Learned Judge observed that if the respondent was aggrieved with the conduct of the mother -in -law, the appellant could not be accused of treating her with cruelty. The trial court further found justification in the conduct of the appellant. Traditions according to him did not permit the attitude the respondent expected of him in the matter. They require a son to be obedient, respectful and uninterfering in such controversies. The trial court found that the appellant was quite affectionate and attached to the respondent and was not guilty of any misconduct towards her. It held that the respondent herself had decided to leave the husband and join the medical college. Ambition or dissatisfaction may have been the reason but what the learned Judge found was that when the husband asked her to came back and look after her matrimonial home, she declined saying that she was drawing Rs. 1700/ - per month while the appellant was getting only Rs. 1000/ -. The trial court further held that the offer made by the appellant during the proceedings of the suit to separate his mother for the pleasure of his wife was a sincere one and the refusal of the respondent to accept the same and go back to him was a clear proof of the fact that the wife had herself deserted the husband. She had made up her mind to leave him and the charge levelled against the appellant was wholly unfounded. The court, accordingly, held that neither the charge of cruelty nor of desertion was proved against the appellant. The petition was further found to be highly belated, having been filed nearly nine years after the separation of the wife from the husband. The petition, in these circumstances, was dismissed.;