J.M. Tondon, J. - (1.) Kiran Hora appellant and Ashok Kumar respondent were married at Delhi on Dec. 12, 1976 The appellant gave birth to a female child on Sept. 20, 1977. On March (2), 1979, the respondent bled a petition for divorce against the appellant under section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter the Act) on the ground of cruelty. The appellant denied the allegations levelled against her by the respondent. She averred that since she was neither kept nor maintained by the respondent, she filed a petition for maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, in Jan., 1979, and the respondent filed the petition for divorce as a counter-blast thereto. The trial Court framed the following issue : Whether the respondent (now appellant), after solemnisation of the marriage treated the petitioner now respondent) with cruelty ? Having found the issue in favour of the respondent, the learned Additional District judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated Nov. 6, 1979 dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. It is against this order that the present appeal is directed.
(2.) The respondent in support of his petition appeared as a witness and stated that he and his family reside at Chandigarh. After his marriage at Delhi with the appellant on Dec. 12, 1976, they lived at Chandigarh. He found that the appellant did not cooperate with his family members nor did she take interest in household work on the plea that her hands would get soiled The appellant read novels all the time. She asked him to like her to cinema shows and to the restaurant. About a week after their marriage she demanded that the jewellery given to her from his aide he replaced by modern type. He approached his parents in this connection. They suggested that the applicant may wait for sometime so that funds could be arranged. The appellant got annoyed and quarrelled with her on this issue. After two months of her stay at Chandigarh the appellant went to Delhi. After sometime be went to Delhi to bring her back. She insisted that be should arrange for a separate house and then she would return to Chandigarh. He lived in the house owned by his father. He hired a house in Sector 35 where they started living together. In Dec., 1977, he accompanied by P.W. Jatinder Pal went to the bus stand at Chandigarh to receive the appellant who was coming from Delhi. They did not meet her. On return home they found the appellant and her mother present. The appellant rebuked him for being absent at the bus stand. After the birth of the female child he looked after her. He also did most of the household work On Dec. 31, 1976, they went to Ambala to meet his friend P.W. Jatinder Pal. The appellant kept her Suit in the cup-board of the Almirah which was looked by the servant inadvertently. The appellant got annoyed and rebuked him in the presence of others. In April, 1977, they went to attend the marriage of P W. Jatinder Pal. The marriage party was to go to Delhi. He invited the appellant's brother who lived at Delhi to join the marriage parity it that place. The appellant insisted that her brother be brought to Rothak in a car and then taken with the marriage party to Delhi. He advised her not to insist on this issue and she got annoyed. In April, 1978, the elder sister of the appellant visited Chandigarh and stayed with them for 10 or 12 days. During this period he invited Rajinder Singh and his wife to dinner On return from office he learnt that the appellant and her sister were going to see cinema show. He told them about the invitation that he had extended to Rajinder Singh. The appellant and her sister still went to see the cinema show and he prepared the meals himself. During the stay of the appellant's sister with them he expressed his intention to join his parents since he could not meet the expenses of the house rent after the birth of the child. On assurance that she could have a separate mess in his parents' house, they again started living at the house of his father. The appellant did not cook meals with the result that they brought food from a Dhaba. His sister Nirmal Kanta looked after the child. The appellant imputed unchastity to his sister. In June. 1978, the appellant compelled him to purchase a room-cooler for the child. He expressed big inability on account of the paucity of funds. On June 12, 1978, at 8.00 P.M. the appellant poured Kerosene oil on her body after quarrelling with him on the issue of purchasing a cooler. She was apprehended before she could set fire to the clothes. Many people collected. The matter was reported to the police. In the meantime, they went over to his uncle's house in Sector 8. (The house of the father of the respondent is in Sector 7). The police reached his uncle's house. They were taken to the police station. The appellant was let off by the police while he, his sister and his parents remained in the lock up for the night. They were released on bail by the Executive Magistrate. On the statement of the appellant, they were proceeded against under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. After their release from the lock up, they came out and met the appellant and her brothers. He and his father were beaten by the brothers of the appellant. He was thought to his house by the brothers of the appellant in their car. He found that the parents of the appellant were present outside his house and they had collected the neighbours the appellant's mother abused him anti his parents. On that day at about 10.P.M. the appellant's brother and Patents took her along with them. On Oct. 21, 1978, the appellant and her father visited the house of his uncle in Sector 8, Chandigarh, and from there they came to their house in Sector 7 The appellant packed her warm clothes act also of the child in a box. She threw the child and went away with her father. The child is with him since then. He is not prepared to live with the appellant. P.W. Jatinder Val stated that the parties visited his house at Ambala several times and they quarrelled during one of those visits. The appellant had placed her clothes in the cup-board of his Almirah and he looked it inadvertently. On this issue the appellant quarrelled with the respondent. The parties attended his marriage at Rothak. The appellant insisted that her brother be brought from Delhi in a car. As he did not agree, she quarrelled with the respondent. He and his wife visited the parties in Sector 35. Chandigarh. He and the respondent went to the bus stand to receive the appellant and he mother. The did not find them there On return home they found the appellant and her mother present. The applicant quarrelled with the respondent because the latter did not receive them at the bus stand. P.W. Beli Ram stood surety for the release of the father of the respondent. He stated that after the release of the respondent and his family members on bail they came down stairs. A car came there. Two young boys alighted from it. They gave first blows to the respondent and his father. The respondent started bleeding from his nose tin his persuasion, the respondent accompanied those young men in their car to his house. P.W. Ram Lal is the of the respondent. He stated that the appellant demonstrated in human behaviour towards them. He could not say about her behaviour towards the respondent. She abused him. The did not do any household work. The parties took a separate house in Sector 35, Chandigarh because a quarrel had become a permanent feature while living jointly. They lived in Sector 35 for about five months and again returned to his house in Sector 7. The parties had a separate most while living in his house. On June 12, 1978, the appellant poured kerosene oil on her at about 7.45 P.M. and raised alarm that she was being put on fire. His elder brother Harbans Lal and the respondent were present in the house. They caught hold of her and took her to the oath room. In the meantime, a flying squad of the police reached their house. The police advised them to live amicably The parties went to the house of his elder brother in Sector 8. His neighbours expressed intention to see the appellant to find out it she was safe. He took those people to his brother's house and showed the appellant to them. The appellant assured the people that she was alright. He returned home About half an hour later the notice from Police Station, Scoter 26 reached his house. The police took him to his brother's house in Sector 8. His wife and his daughter accompanied him. They along with the appellant were then taken to the police station. The appellant was let off but they were put in the lock up. They were released on bail the next day at 2 P.M. As they came out of the Court room the appellant's two brothers cams out of a car and gave beating to him and the respondent. The respondent bled from his nose. The respondent was taken in that car by them to his 'house in -sector 7. On Oct. 21, 1978. the appellant and her father visited their house. The appellant packed clothes in a box. He went to the police station. An A. S. I and a constable accompanied him to his house. Tho appellant left her daughter and herself went away with her father P. W. Harbans lal is the brother of P. W. Ram Lal and uncle of the respondent. He supported the case of the respondent. P.W.K. Singh. an A.S. I., stated out on Oct. 21, 1978. P.W. Ram Lel made a complaint and in pursuance thereof he went to his house in Sector 7. The parties and Haveli Ram, father of the appellant. were present in the house. He found a dispute between the parties about the division of clothes. The appellant wanted to take her clothes as also that of the child. The appellant placed the child on the road saying that she would not carry her. She was advised to take the child with her but with no effect. P.W. Rajinder Singh stated that in April. 1978, he and his wife visited the house of the respondent in Sector 35. The appellant was not present. The meals were cooked by a cook of the respondent. After they has finished their meals at 9 P M. and were ready to leave the appellant and her sister arrived.
(3.) The appellant in her own statement said that after her marriage, she lived at the house the respondent in Sector 7. The respondents sister and parents lived jointly with that. She stayed there for 7/8 days. She was a student of B A (final) and, therefore, returned to Delhi in the interests of her studies. The respondent accompanied her and left her at Delhi. She returned to Chandigarh on March 5, 1977, and again stayed with her in-laws. Mrs. Raj Luthra is the respondent's mother's sister and he resides at Delhi. Mrs, Pushpa Wanti is the wife of maternal uncle of the respondent and she also lives at Delhi. R.W. Ram Mohan Guthru a is the son of Mrs Raj Luthra. She visited their houses at Delhi with the respondent, whenever the latter visited that place. After staying at Chandigarh for about 11/2 or 1 3/4 months she returned to Delhi with her husband. She gave birth to a female child on Sept. 20,1977 at Delhi. The respondent visited her at Delhi during this period and brought her to Chandigarh on Nov. 30, 1977. They started living in a separate house in Sector 35, Chandigarh The respondent had told her about his having taken a separate house when he met her at Delhi. They lived happily in that house. She performed the household work She cooked meals rind cleaned utensils. She looked after the child. They lived to Sector 35 for about 5 months and then shifted to respondent's father's house in Sector 7. The parents of the respondent complained about the inadequate dowry given to her. They wanted money to construct the first floor of their house in Sector 7. She complained about it to the respondent and the latter advised her not to bother about it. After a fortnight's stay in Sector 7, found a sudden change in the at suicide of the respondent. The respondent's father had -made a will in favour of big daughter excluding him from inheritance. (The respondent is the only son of his parents). The parents of the respondent said that the will could be changed to the advantage of the respondent in he abandoned her. One day (12-6-1978) she and the respondent purchased some bed-sheets from the bazar. On return home her mother- in-law objected. The quarrel on this issue continued. At about 8-45 P. M. she was boiling milk for her child in the kitchen. Her mother-in-law came all of a sudden and threw Kersene oil on her. She caught hold of her (mother-in-law) and raised alarm for help. The people from the neighbourhood stepped in. The respondent took her inside the room and asked her to change her clothes R. W. Bhopinder Singh lived in the neighbourhood. He also came to their house. On his enquiry, she narrated the incident to him. Bhopinder Singh said that he would inform the police. In the meantime, the respondent's uncle (P.W Harbans Lal) came there and took her to his house in ,sector 8. She was thereafter taken no the police station and her statement was recorded by the police. The people living in their neighbourhood brought her from the police station the next morning. Her parents and brother reached Chandigarh and she accompanied them to Delhi. On Oct. 21, 1978, she came to Chandigarh along with her father to collect her warm clothes and that of The child. The neighbours advised her to leave the child with the respondent so as to persuade him to bring her hack from Delhi. She is prepared to live with the respondent and she has always respected him. In her cross-examination, she added that she had no grouse against the respondent. The respondent had never abused her or beat her. He had always treated her with love and affection. She felt no danger from the respondent during the night when kerosene oil was thrown on her. She had told the police that she had no complaint against the respondent. In reply to a question in behalf of the respondent that she had not brought anything form her parents after the marriage, she stated that when she lived with the respondent in Sector 35, she had obtained Rs. 1,000 from her brother for purchasing some articles which were not allowed to be taken from the house of her in-laws. She admitted that she attended the marriage of P W. Jatinder Pal who visited their house at Chandigarh as well. She saw cinema shows in the company of the respondent once or twice a month. She had never gone to any hotel or restaurant with the respondent. She had passed a course in cooking and it was her bobby to prepare vegetarian and non-vegetarian dishes. She did not quarrel with the respondent at the marriage of Jatinder Pal She did not visit the house of Jatinder Pal at Ambala. She had returned from Delhi to Chandigarh with the respondent when the latter told her that he had taken a house in Sector 35. She denied that one day when Rajinder Singh and his wife came to their house in Sector 35, she accompanied by her sister went away to see a cinema show. They shifted from Sector 35 to her in-laws in Sector 7 because the father of the respondent had made a will to the exclusion of the respondent and they wanted a share in the house by getting the will changed All ornaments of the family were kept in the locker in the a time of the respondent. She never suggested to him to transfer the locker in her name. They had a separate mess in Sector 7. Her in-laws prayed with her child. The rooms in the house in Sector 7 are fitted with fans. She and the respondent had a separate bed room. She did not go to the respondent's uncle's house on June 12, 1978. The uncle of the respondent reached their house in Sector 7 shortly after the kerosene incident. She did not make a demand for the purchase of a cooler on June 12, 1978. She denied that on the respondent's refusal to purchase a cooler, she had threatened that she will take her life. R.W. Bhopinder Singh stated that he lived in a house at a distance of 150 feet from the house of the respondent in Sector 7. On June 12, 1978, at about 10 P.M he heard noise in the house of the respondent. He accompanied by his wife went there. Many people living in the neighbourhood had assembled. They knocked at the door of the house and shouted. The appellant came outside the house. She was trembling and her body was smelling kerosene oil. She told him that she was going to be burnt. He informed the police. In the meantime, the parties left for the respondent's uncle's house in Sector 8. The police reached Sector 7 and were taken to the house of the respondent uncle in sector 8. The police took the appellant to Police Station in Sector 26. He followed the police and so did many people. About four months there-after, the appellant accompanied by her father came to the respondent's house. He and his wife went there. The appellant asked for the clothes. They attempted a compromise between the parties, but the respondent did not agree. They asked the appellant to leave the child with the respondent so that be may bring her back from Delhi. The appellant handed over the child to the respondent. R W. Roshan Lal said that the respondent is his fathers sister's son and the appellant is the sister of his wife. He had arranged her marriage with the respondent. They lived happly. In May or June 1977, he visited Chandigarh and stayed at their house. He found that the parents of the respondent quarrelled with the appellant on the issue of inadequate dowry, R. W. Ram Mohan Luthra said that the respondent is his mother's sister's son. The respondent always expressed satisfaction and pleasure about his married life. The mother of the respondent, however, complained about the inadequate dowry brought by the appellant. He was told by the respondent that letter's parents were not happy with his wife and they wanted him to abandon her. The respondent further told him that the farmer's mother had declared that be would be allowed to inherit the property only if he abandoned his wife.;