- (1.) After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that there is no scope for interference in this appeal.
(2.) The wife's own case is that she was married in 1966 and the Muklava ceremony took place in 1974 and that she lived with her husband till June. 1982. She filed a petition for divorce in November, 1984 on the plea that her husband was a dead drunkard and wanted her to make her body available to other persons to earn money and since she was a respectable lady, she did not agree with the result he started beating her. The husband denied the wife's allegations and pleaded that after she got into service as a Sales Representative at Karnal Central Co-operative Store, she started mixing with the employees of the department and thereafter with strangers of bad character and had illicit relations with them. The wife did not file replication to claim additional ground of divorce on the basis of the pleas raised by the husband. On the evidence led in the case, the trial Court believed the statement of the husband and that of the wife's father and came to the conclusion that it was the wife who was guilty and not the husband. As a result, the divorce petition was dismissed. This is wife's appeal.
(3.) As already noticed, according to the statement made by the wife in court as P.W.1, from 1074 till 1982 the parties lived together as husband and wife. The only statement made by the wife against her husband is in the following terms :- "The respondent ill-treated me as long as I cohabited with him. He used to beat me because he compelled me to submit resignation he even pressurized me to become a prostitute. However, I did not agree to his illegal demand. The respondent is a drunkard. Since June 1082, I am residing separately". The wife did not produce any other witness. The husband appeared as R.W. 1 and denied all the allegations levelled by the wife, and stated that he had doubts about her character & he made her understand several times but she did not agree. According to his statement, he had seen her in the company of bad characters. He also stated that he saw her in the company of Monglu and tried to persuade her not to indulge in such things but she did not agree. The statement of the husband is supported by Jagat Ram (R.W.2) who is the father of the wife. His statement is in the following terms : "The petitioner never complained to me that the respondent used to beat her or asked her to indulge in prostitution. My daughter is matriculate. The respondent is under matric. The respondent had complained to me that the petitioner is of bad character but I was not satisfied, however, now I am satisfied that the petitioner is a girl of bad character, she at present is residing with some person of bad character. The petitioner is absconding for the last 7-8 months. The petitioner had taken away all my ornaments and other articles from my house in my absence. She is a girl of very bad character". The father himself is blaming the petitioner. If the husband had wanted her to become a prostitute, the matter would have been reported to the father. Moreover, this would have happened in 1974 when she joined his company. For eight years, she lived happily with him, but it is only after she got in touch with her colleagues in the office and with other persons that the problem cropped up and for that reason instead of correcting herself, she has levelled false allegations against her husband. Accordingly I am in agreement with the Court below that the wife has failed to prove that any case is made out for granting divorce to her.;