- (1.) THE appellant, Suresh Chandra, has challenged the judgment dated 08.07.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajsamand whereby the learned Judge has granted a decree of divorce in favour of respondent-wife, Smt. Mangu. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant and respondent were married on 18.06.2005 according to the Hindu rites and customs. According to the respondent-wife, immediately after her marriage, she stayed with the appellant and his elder brother. However, from the very first day, both the appellant and his elder brother ridiculed her about the dowry and started demanding more dowry. Just eight days thereafter, the appellant's elder brother threw them out of the house and out of his school at Udaipur and told the respondent- wife that her father had failed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry. Since both the appellant and the respondent were homeless, the respondent's father rented a room for them at Udaipur. According to the respondent, her father continued to pay the rent. THE appellant and the respondent stayed in the said room for one month. However, during this period, according to the respondent, the appellant used to assault her practically every day and use to demand that she should ask her father to pay Rs.2,00,000/-. THEreafter, he insisted that her father should find an accommodation at Kakorli, otherwise he would leave her. Consequently, the respondent's father located an accommodation at Kakroli and shifted them there. Even at Kakroli, the appellant continued to misbehave with her. Every time, when she would go out of the house, he would cast aspersion on her character and would claim that "she is going out of the house in order to meet her lover". Despite the fact that twice the appellant was granted employment by the respondent's brother, at his marble factory, on both the occasion, he left the job without any explanation. THE appellant used to demand dowry even from her brother. Thus, she filed an application under Section 13 read with Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act ('the Act', for short). THE Appellant filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint.
(2.) IN order to support her case, the respondent-wife examined three witnesses and submitted three documents. IN turn, the appellant examined three witnesses and also submitted three documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, by judgment dated 08.07.2010, the learned Judge granted the divorce in favour of respondent-wife. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Jawan Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has overlooked the fact that even prior to the filing of the divorce petition by the respondent, the appellant had already filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, clearly the appellant wanted to peacefully cohabit with the respondent-wife. But she had left him without any rhyme or reason. Hence, the fault lay with the respondent. Therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in granting divorce on the ground of cruelty as the erring party was the respondent-wife herself. Moreover, she could not be given the benefit of her own fault. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed that the impugned judgment should be interfered with. On the other hand, Mr. S. Saruparia, the learned counsel for the respondent, has strenuously argued that merely because an application under Section 9 of the Act was filed by the appellant, it would not lead to the conclusion that he wanted to live with the respondent-wife. Secondly, both the parties had entered into a compromise (Ex.1) which clearly shows that the appellant had admitted that he had been cruel with his wife. Moreover, during the course of the divorce proceedings, both the husband and the wife had submitted an application under Section 13-B of the Act for divorce by mutual consent. However, subsequently the husband declined to give his consent. Furthermore, the respondent has given cogent reasons for staying away from the appellant's company as she has been subjected to dowry demands, and to both physical and mental cruelties. A woman who is physically assaulted and mentally tortured cannot be expected to live with her husband. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in granting the divorce on the ground of cruelty. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the record and perused the impugned order . Merely because the appellant had submitted an application under Section 9 of the Act, it does not, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that he desired to live with his wife. In case the appellant genuinely wanted to live with his wife and wanted to keep her, he had other means to persuade the wife to join him. But, in the present case, no evidence has been led by the appellant to show that he had tried to reconcile the difference with his wife during the period of separation. Therefore, the application filed under Section 9 of the Act is irrelevant. A bare perusal of the compromise (Ex.1) clearly reveals that the appellant had admitted that both the parties used to fight with each other. This compromise, therefore, buttresses the case of the respondent-wife. Even, in her testimony, she has consistently claimed that from the very first day of the marriage, she was ridiculed for bringing inadequate dowry. In the first week of her marriage, a demand for Rs.2,00,000/- was made by the appellant and his family members. Despite the best efforts made by her and by her father to maintain harmonious relationship in her married life, she was constantly harassed and assaulted for a bigger dowry. Moreover, even her character was assassinated by her husband. He would tell her that "she was going out of the house in order to meet her lover." A wife can no longer be treated as a chattel by the husband. A wife being an individual, being a citizen, has a right to live with dignity. It is, indeed, trite to state that dowry demand is an evil practice which continues in our society despite the laws which exist against the giving or taking of dowry. Moreover, repeatedly it has been held by the Courts that if a husband casts aspersions on the character of the wife, it amounts to cruelty committed by him. The incident narrated by the respondent are not normal wear and tear of a married life. Under the circumstances narrated by her, it would have been extremely difficult for her to cohabit with the appellant and to fulfil her matrimonial obligations towards him and his family members. Therefore, the respondent-wife had a justifiable reasons for staying away from the appellant. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is, in fact, she who has deserted the appellant, is devoid of any merit. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.;