- (1.) This appeal is by the husband who has remained unsuccessful in obtaining a decree of divorce against the respondent-wife. The parties to the litigation were married on March 4, 1976 at Ambala. At that time he was posted at Girl Nagar Project in Himachal Pradesh. The respondent gave birth to a male child on October 26, 1976, at Chandigarh where she was posted as a Music Teacher in those days. The decree was sought on the grounds of desertion and cruelty and in support of the same, the following facts, as noticed by the lower Court, were pleaded in the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, the Act):- (i) When she stayed with him for about a month during summer vacations in the month of June 1976 at Giri Nagar Project, her attitude was indifferent towards him. d (ii) Again, when he stayed with her at Chandigarh for about a week in August. 1976, her behaviour towards him as well as his aunt was indifferent and far from satisfactory. (iii) When he contacted her after resigning his job in August 1976, and requested her to accompany to village Thumber, she refused to accompany him without assigning any reason. (iv) When his parents went to Ambala to see the respondent and the child given birth to by her on getting information through letter dated 26-10-1976 addressed by Ved Parkash, her brother, they were not allowed to see either the respondent or the child and even there whereabouts were not disclosed to them and at the time of that visit, the brother and mother of the respondent had misbehaved with them and practically kicked them off. (v) An attempt was made by him to persuade her to accompany him to the matrimonial home and he also met the brother of respondent who, however, abused him and also threatened to heat him with the result that he had to leave without seeing the respondent on account of fear of any untoward incident. (vi) In the month of May 1977, Ved Parkash brother of the respondent met him at the bus stand and abused him (petitioner), while giving out a threat of dire consequences in case he or any member of his family visited his (Ved Parkash) house; and (vii) Several attempts were made by the petitioner to bring the respondent back but with no result. The following additional facts were pleaded by way of amending the petition with the permission of the Court : (a) That he was not given the particulars of birth of male child in spite of his having asked several times for that and he had not even been shown the face of the child since 26-10-1976 for reasons best known to her. (b) That these facts were per sultum and per se precipititious cruelty on the part of respondent towards the petitioner". Yet again on November 27, 1979, the appellant sought permission (allowed on January 15, 1980) to amend his petition to add the following ground for seeking the relief under section 12 of the Act : - "(a) That at the time of marriage, the respondent was pregnant with person other than the petitioner." It deserves to be mentioned here that in the lower Court as well os here it has rightly been conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that no relief is available to him on the last mentioned ground in view of the stringent conditions laid down in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 12. For seeking relief of annulment of marriage under section 12 of the Act, the condition precedent of initiation of proceedings within one year from the date of marriage is absolute nature and cannot possibly be extended under any circumstances like any other period of limitation prescribed by the statute. The general principles of law of limitation are not applicable to these proceedings. Further it has nowhere been pleaded by the appellant that following the discovery of pre-marital pregnancy he had not indulged in cohabitation or intercourse with the respondent. In the absence of such a circumstance and establishment of the same, the remedy is irretrievably lost to him.
(2.) Besides controverting all the above noted factual allegations, the respondent has pleaded that all through she has been behaving as a dutiful wife towards the appellant and was willing to live with him as his wife. As already indicated the trial Court has found most of the facts as asserted by the petitioner to be not established and, to my mind, rightly. The following brief analysis of the statement of the appellant himself as P.W.1 is enough to non-suit him on the pleas taken by him : "I had a suspicion that the respondent was pregnant. The pregnancy was rather visible. My aunty advised me as well as the respondent for giving respondent some rest because she was to deliver a child . ...... ...... ...... however, Saroj had suggested that she could not live alone at Chandigarh and asked me to arrange for a relation to live with her and, therefore, I arranged for my aunty who was earlier living at Thumber to live with her at Chandigarh. I do not know if my aunt was living happily.' You may ask them when they came to the witness box. ...... Respondent and my aunty had gone to village Thumber on occasion of Dussehra but I do not know the exact date. But thereafter they did not return to Chandigarh. . .. ...... ..... I doubted the character of the respondent and I do not want to bring the respondent to me...... In August 1976 when I came to know of the pregnancy I started doubting her character. My aunty had told about the character of the respondent and later on I had told it to my parents. My aunty had told me that Saroj was in the advance stage of pregnancy and was about to deliver the child and this was the cause or doubt. Attitude of my aunt and myself changed towards the respondent since we were told about the suspicion. I cannot say about my parents because the respondent has 'never lived with them. ... I was quite happy if the respondent continued in the job". From this statement it is manifestly clear that no element of cruelty can possibly he attributed to the respondent wife. To my mind, it was the lurking doubt of the appellant about the chastity of the respondent that started troubling him and resulted in this litigation.
(3.) Equally frivolous is his story about the misbehaviour of the respondent towards the aunt of the appellant and it is so completely exposed by her own statement as P. W. 3. It has been admitted by her in no uncertain terms that while leaving the house of the respondent in Chandigarh for the last time for village Thumber, that is, village of the appellant, she did till the respondent that she would return after a few days. In the face of this statement the story of misbehaviour towards her and her being turned out by the respondent completely stands smashed.;