such character as causes or is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health,
body or the mind, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such
danger. The concept of cruelty has varied from time to time, place to place,
individual to individual. Cruelty is antithetical to love and affection.
Between a husband and a wife cruelty would be a conduct which destroys
the soft feeling of concern for each other and the sense of togetherness
which is the bed-lock of a healthy matrimonial relationship. Such conduct
which assumes a level where parties cannot reasonably be expected to live
together would be cruelty of the kind warranting the matrimonial bond to be
snapped. The factors of each case must be considered and the accusations
and allegations must be viewed in the context in which they were made.
Whether a spouse is guilty of cruelty is essentially a question of fact. The
distinction between ordinary wear and tear of marriage vis-a-vis grave and
weighty conduct so as to make cohabitation virtually unbearable has to be
kept in mind.
2. The preamble statement above, if read by a lay person, would result in
the person forming an opinion that it is very easy for a Judge to decide a
matrimonial dispute because the contours of law are so well defined that
cases on either side of the line can be identified with precision.
3. Alas! This is not so. Human relations are built on feelings. Not on
reason or logic. Feeling is not an exact science; it has vagueness around it.
Law and justice is built on reason and logic – not feelings. Therefore the
process of judicial decision making in matrimonial affairs is riddled with
complications. To a person who is weathered by time and circumstances
and whose emotions have been overcome by the vagaries of time, a hard
word spoken may be inconsequential. To a soft minded person, where
feelings matter more, even the most trivial word would be cruel. More the
love – more the affection. But the danger would be that a slightest dent
would break the edifice.
4. The situation is indeed paradoxical. Matrimonial bonds which are
bonds of emotion require adjudication on logic and reason.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Delivered on: September 01, 2016
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 4/2013
RAJDEEP ...
versus
GURMEET SINGH ...
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
1. Cruelty as a ground for matrimonial relief is defined as conduct of
such character as causes or is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health,
body or the mind, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such
danger. The concept of cruelty has varied from time to time, place to place,
individual to individual. Cruelty is antithetical to love and affection.
Between a husband and a wife cruelty would be a conduct which destroys
the soft feeling of concern for each other and the sense of togetherness
which is the bed-lock of a healthy matrimonial relationship. Such conduct
which assumes a level where parties cannot reasonably be expected to live
together would be cruelty of the kind warranting the matrimonial bond to be
snapped. The factors of each case must be considered and the accusations
and allegations must be viewed in the context in which they were made.
Whether a spouse is guilty of cruelty is essentially a question of fact. The
distinction between ordinary wear and tear of marriage vis-a-vis grave and
weighty conduct so as to make cohabitation virtually unbearable has to be
kept in mind.
2. The preamble statement above, if read by a lay person, would result in
the person forming an opinion that it is very easy for a Judge to decide a
matrimonial dispute because the contours of law are so well defined that
cases on either side of the line can be identified with precision.
3. Alas! This is not so. Human relations are built on feelings. Not on
reason or logic. Feeling is not an exact science; it has vagueness around it.
Law and justice is built on reason and logic – not feelings. Therefore the
process of judicial decision making in matrimonial affairs is riddled with
complications. To a person who is weathered by time and circumstances
and whose emotions have been overcome by the vagaries of time, a hard
word spoken may be inconsequential. To a soft minded person, where
feelings matter more, even the most trivial word would be cruel. More the
love – more the affection. But the danger would be that a slightest dent
would break the edifice.
4. The situation is indeed paradoxical. Matrimonial bonds which are
bonds of emotion require adjudication on logic and reason.
5. The facts of the instant case bring out the dichotomy as also the
paradox inherent in matrimonial dispute adjudication.
6. Rajdeep Kaur and Gurmeet Singh, professing Sikh religion, after a
year and a half courtship solemnized their marriage on November 19, 2006.
They were blessed with a son on September 27, 2007. They named him
Sahil. The separation took place on April 06, 2008 when Rajdeep, with the
infant son, moved to her parents’ house. Gurmeet sought dissolution of the
marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion by filing a petition under
Section 13(ia) and Section 13(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
7. Experience tells us that there is a lot of exaggeration in divorce
petitions and probably the reason is a feeling that unless the other spouse is
painted black the chances of success are meagre. The problem which these
pleadings create is a diffuse of evidence making it difficult for a Judge to
sieve the grain from the chaff. The propensity is to throw all and sundry at
the opposite party hoping that something would stick. The same is the story
in the instant case.
8. Gurmeet claims that the couple met in response to a matrimonial
which Rajdeep does not deny. After a long courtship ceremony of recent
origin, called Roka, was performed in the second week of August, 2006. A
word on the so called Roka. Its existence take backs approximately 25
years. The couple is treated as a kind of a chattel. Its significance is that on
account of money given by the family of the female to the male it is
conveyed to the society that neither would henceforth scout for a life partner
– the search for a life partner is stopped : Roka. It is a social evil which
needs to be condemned. It entails useless expenditure and in many cases
becomes the source of future bickering. A Judge has no means to fly back
in time to see what had happened. But we find in every case allegations
painting the opposite spouse black commences from the day of the Roka.
Gurmeet is no exception.
9. Gurmeet Singh works with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
(MTNL). Rajdeep Kaur works as a nurse at All India Institute of Medical
Sciences (AIIMS).
10. Setting the scene for cruelty to be established, Gurmeet pleads that
after the Roka ceremony was performed Rajdeep complained to him over
the telephone that his parents had not gifted her sufficient items as per her
taste and living standard evincing that he was a member of a low class of
society. Taking the story forward, Gurmeet claims that September 23, 2006
he went to Rajdeep’s house because it happened to be her birthday and his
father-in-law enquired if he had any special demand for marriage, to which
he replied that he would prefer to solemnize the marriage at night; and got
the response that if he so desired he could take Rajdeep with him to his
house and arrange the marriage at the night. He claims that a month before
the marriage, Rajdeep’s father in the company of some relatives came to his
house and on a stamp paper wanted him to give in writing that the marriage
was without dowry so that on the day of the marriage his family would not
create a scene demanding dowry. Informing that the marriage was
solemnized on November 19, 2006 at Gurudwara Hari Nagar, he claims that
right after the marriage Rajdeep started creating problems in his life and
refused to perform any household work saying bluntly that she was not a
maid and wanted to enjoy life and not waste her life doing petty household
works. She boasted of earning herself. He pleads further that he requested
Rajdeep to leave her job, but claims she insisted to continue with the job and
not sit idle at home and claims that she told him that she did not like to be in
her matrimonial house. He claims that after 4-5 days of the marriage
Rajdeep wanted him to purchase a washing machine and when he expressed
financial constraint she cursed herself uttering that she was an unlucky girl
who had been cheated into marriage. She abused him and his parents. He
pleads that it was he who had to always initiate sex and Rajdeep was always
indifferent. By December, 2006 Rajdeep showed a tendency of repeatedly
going to her parental house without informing him and she started spending
weeks at a stretch at the house of her parents. During this period of
separation it was only he who used to contact her and she never attempted
on her own to ever contact him. He claims that on December 16, 2006 when
he and Rajdeep were returning from Rajdeep’s parental home he found
Rajdeep had brought something from her parental home and he asked what
had she brought and got the response that who was he to ask her anything
when he could not buy even an umbrella for her which she had desired the
previous month. She taunted him by uttering that he was not worth even the
price of an umbrella costing `200/-. He claims that on December 19, 2006
he found Rajdeep missing from the house at 11:30 PM and when he
contacted her was shocked to learn that she was at the bus stop. He rushed
to the bus stop and requested Rajdeep to return. She refused bluntly telling
him that she wanted a divorce. He claims that on January 01, 2007 Rajdeep
returned home after night duty and next morning he requested her to have
breakfast with him. She refused. She refused to contact and wish her father
a happy new year when he requested her to do so adding further that he
desired her to contact her father only to extract money from her father. He
claims that in the first week of January, 2007 his father had to be admitted
for medical treatment and being discharged after two days he requested
Rajdeep to take leave and take care of her father-in-law but she refused
telling him that it was his duty as a son to take care of his ailing father. He
claims that for the first time somewhere in the middle of January, 2007
Rajdeep initiated sex with him and thereafter in the first week of February,
2007 informed him that she was in the family way. He claims that in the
second week of January, 2007 Rajdeep learnt that the house in which they
were living was in the name of his father and taunted him of being a beggar,
saying that even the job which he had was because of his father. He further
pleads that Rajdeep insisted that the house be transferred in her name and
when he expressed his inability to request his father to do so she left the
matrimonial home abusing him and his family in the filthiest words. He
pleads that in the month of March, Rajdeep desired to abort the foetus and
when he refused to give consent she said that she found herself entangled
due to the pregnancy and said that after the child is born she would leave.
She taunted him that then he could sleep with his mother or marry again. He
claims that in the month of March he obtained two policies, one in his name
and the other in the name of his wife, upon which Rajdeep picked up a
quarrel on the point as to why he had given his name as a nominee in the
policy which he had taken in the name of Rajdeep; and she desired the
nominee to be her father. She told him that he had taken a policy in her
name with him as a nominee only to kill her and enrich himself with the
gains of the sum insured. He claims that he tolerated the mental cruelty
inflicted by his wife because she was an expecting mother. They were
blessed with a baby boy on September 27, 2007. He claims that Rajdeep
refused to nurse the child on the plea that breastfeeding the child would spoil
her figure. He claims that the verbal trauma increased thereafter. His wife
lodged a complaint with the local police. He was kept in the lockup for
hours and the police gave him a beating. He claims that in the morning of
April 04, 2008, Rajdeep told him that she was not feeling well and would
not go to her office. When he was in his office he received a call from his
wife informing him that she was in her father’s house and would never
return. She told him to have fun with his mother and that her son would live
with her father. He claims that in mid May, 2008, when he was lonely, he
contacted Rajdeep and requested her to meet him but she refused. He
received a call one day from his wife either in the month of June and July
2008, telling him that somebody had practiced witchcraft outside her
father’s house and when he responded that there was nothing to worry she
abused him and levelled the allegation that he had practiced witchcraft to
kill her and her son. He claims that Rajdeep starting visiting his colleagues
to tell them concocted stories speaking ill of him and his family. Well
wishers arranged for a family meeting at the local gurudwara at GTB Nagar
in August, 2008 during which meeting Rajdeep‘s father started abusing him
and his family members. He pleaded that on the day of Deepawali, with
great difficulty he could meet his son and when he requested his wife to let
him have a photograph of their son she refused and taunted that he would
practice witchcraft on the photograph of their child. He claims that in
September, 2009 on the birthday of his son the gifts which he gave were
adversely commented upon by Rajdeep who threw the same alleging that
they were of cheap quality. He pleads that on March 28, 2010 he received a
call from Rajdeep informing that her father had passed away. Accompanied
by his family members he reached the parental house of Rajdeep only to be
abused and accused of having killed her father. On April 04, 2010 at a
ceremony to pay homage to Rajdeep’s father he and his family members
were abused. Rajdeep uttered as to why he was not satisfied by killing her
father and she taunted him as to how many more would he kill. With effect
from April, 2010 Rajdeep would contact her on the phone regularly only to
abuse him. Due to family tension his mother became ill in mid May, 2010
and was hospitalized and in spite of Rajdeep knowing said fact she did not
even meet him or his mother.
11. In her written statement Rajdeep denied the insinuations alleged
against her. Commencing her reply from what happened at the Roka
ceremony she denied that she complained regarding the gift items
exchanged. As per her it was a simple ceremony at gurudwara Nanak Piao.
Sweets were exchanged and as per custom the girl’s family gave cash in
envelopes to the relatives of the boy. Her family gave 11 boxes of sweet
and a basket of fruits to the parents of Gurmeet. As per her a small
complaint was made by her mother-in-law concerning money to be given to
the relatives of the boy being put in one envelope and not in separate
envelopes, to which complaint her father apologises and promised that in
future all customs would be followed as requested by her in-laws.
Concerning what happened at her birthday on September 23, 2006 she
admitted that Gurmeet desired marriage ceremony to be performed at the
night but claims her father refusing to accede to the request informing
Gurmeet that they were Sikhs and as per custom the marriage would be
performed during day time in the gurudwara. Her father told Gurmeet that if
he insisted, he could arrange for a night function akin to a reception which
could be attended by relatives from both sides provided the expenses were
equally shared between the boy’s and the girl’s side. The matter was
dropped. Denying the allegation that her father desired any writing to be
given on a stamp paper regarding no dowry demand she pleaded that being
the only child her parents used to shower her with gifts and for their own
happiness and joy would have done so even at the marriage. Denying that
she refused to perform household works Rajdeep pleaded that working as a
nurse in AIIMS she was used to arduous work and there was no question of
her not being mindful of her duties as a wife. She denied that she was ever
requested to leave her job. To the plea of Gurmeet that when he refused to
buy a washing machine she cursed herself uttering that she was an unlucky
girl who has been cheated into marriage she replied that a small incident had
been completely twisted. As per her, a few days after the marriage when she
had an off day she requested her husband to come home a little early saying
jocularly : ‘do you want me to just keep washing clothes whole day or can
we both go out in the evening’. To which her husband retorted : ‘if you want
to wash clothes you should have brought a washing machine from your
father’s house’. She claimed that she was hurt, but let the matter pass with a
smile. She denied the allegation of indifference towards her husband or the
tendency of repeatedly going to her parental house. As per her she would
visit her parent’s house after informing her husband. As per her, her in-laws
showed reluctance in her visiting her parental home. She claimed that one
day when she requested her husband to accompany her to her father’s house,
he drove her around and parked the car in a street and said tauntingly ‘here
is your father’s house’. Regarding the version concerning an umbrella, she
said that as a matter of habit she used to carry an umbrella with her and
because she used to give her entire salary to her husband she requested her
husband to purchase an umbrella for her and got the response that she better
gets one from her father. Responding to the allegation that on December 19,
2006 she left the matrimonial house and was found by her husband at the
bus stop, she pleaded that Gurmeet was a heavy drinker of alcohol and was
in the habit of beating her. On the day in question he gave her a beating and
to save herself she ran out towards the bus stop. She denied ever refusing to
have breakfast with her husband on January 01, 2007 and pleaded that after
breakfast there was a heated discussion which ended with her receiving a
slap in the form of the new year gift. Concerning the allegation that she did
not take leave when her father-in-law was unwell she claims that on account
of leave taken by her for the marriage her in-laws agreed that she need not
take any further leave. Regarding the plea that it was Gurmeet alone who
used to initiate sex, she denied the same and pleaded that it was consensual.
She denied that she ever coerced her husband to compel his father to transfer
his immovable property in her name. She pleaded that she was the only
child of her parents and would inherit their immovable and movable
property. She denied that she ever desired to abort the foetus. She denied
picking up any quarrel on the issue of the name of the nominee in the policy
taken by Gurmeet. She denied refusing to nurse her baby and pleaded that
as a professional nurse she was aware of the benefits of breastfeeding a
child. Admitting that she had made a complaint to the local police, she
claimed that her parents being away and on she being tried to be throttled
she had no option but to inform the police because there was nobody to
rescue her. She emphasized in her pleading that her parents were away to
Punjab. As per her, her husband tried to abscond but the police caught him.
When he returned from the police station he threatened her. She denied
having made any insinuation that her husband could have fun with her
mother. Regarding the incident pleaded by Gurmeet having taken place in
the morning of April 04, 2008, she pleaded that nothing happened on said
date. She clarified that on April 06, 2008, notwithstanding it being a
Sunday, she had to go for work. She requested her husband to look after
their baby and got the reply that she should take the child along to the
hospital. She got furious and said this was not possible and told her husband
to behave like a responsible father. Her husband became angry and snatched
the five month’s old baby from her hands and flung him on the bed. She
rushed to comfort the terrified child who was crying. All this while
Gurmeet abused her. The next day she took off; being unwell. Fearing for
the safety of the child and hoping that the separation would cool down her
husband she left for her parental house. She asserted that her husband and
his family stopped communicating with her and not vice versa. As per her,
when her mother-in-law died her husband contacted her. She denied
refusing access to her husband to meet their child. She denied the
allegations made against her regarding she complaining of any witchcraft
practiced or of adversely commenting upon any gifts. She claimed that her
husband visited her parental house to meet their child only twice in three
years after she left her matrimonial house. She denied that she or her family
members ever insulted her husband during the religious ceremony to pay
homage to her father. In fact, she claimed that her husband spoke tauntingly
regarding her father’s death to her. She denied not offering to look after her
mother-in-law. She pleaded that her husband’s family did not want her to
look after her mother-in-law. According to her when her mother-in-law died
her husband and his relatives wanted her to stay in her matrimonial house
and she agreed. After the death rituals were over her husband asked her to
leave for sometime. And therefore she went back to her father’s house.
12. At the outset it strikes the reader of the rival versions projected by
Rajdeep and Gurmeet that there is a serious flaw in the version of Gurmeet
concerning the child born to the parties on September 27, 2007. On the one
hand he claims that when Rajdeep learnt of the pregnancy she desired to
abort the foetus claiming that she felt entangled due to the pregnancy and
told him that after the child is born she would leave the house leaving the
child behind and that after the child was born she refused to nurse him and
on the other hand he pleads that Rajdeep denied him access to his child and
that it was with great difficulty that he managed to meet his child on the day
of Deepawali. This mutually contradictory behaviour of Rajdeep pleaded by
him, destroys his pleadings, and sets the further analysis by us and for which
the onward journey requires us to note the testimony of the husband and the
wife in light of their pleadings.
13. Needless to state in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit filed
Gurmeet parroted pleadings in the petition seeking divorce and if we look at
the petition and the affidavit by way of evidence we find the same a
verbatim copy of each other. Paragraph by paragraph, line by line the two
are identical.
14. In his cross-examination he admitted knowing Rajdeep for about a
year and half prior to the marriage and being on regular telephonic touch
with her and meeting her two-three times. He admitted that his mother had
met his fiancée two-three times before they were married. He admitted that
his parents were aware that his fiancée was the only child of her parents and
her mother had died long time back. As per him, money was not an issue
because both were in Government service. He admitted that his father was
suffering from a chronic mental illness for which he was being administered
medicines. As per him a discussion had taken place between him and his
wife regarding a house in Bhai Parmanand Colony and in Jahangir Puri and
there was an issue regarding title of the house being in the name of his
father. On the issue of he alone initiating sex, during cross-examination he
admitted : ‘there were no big issues over sex but sometimes some small
arguments used to take place. In the beginning, there was some resistance
towards physical relations by the respondent’. He admitted that the
resistance for house work by his wife was on account of her working hours.
He said that he told his wife to leave the job and concentrate on household
works. He admitted that his father-in-law used to stay alone He admitted
that when their child developed jaundice and was admitted in the hospital he
did not take leave. Tellingly he admitted during cross-examination : ‘After
my marriage, I would go into fits of depression for which I would go to a
doctor for consultation and treatment. The consultant would prescribe
medicines for me for my condition but I would not take the same as I did not
want to become dependent upon medicines. Initially, I did take medicines
but I did not want to become dependent, so, I stopped taking the same. I do
not remember the name of the medicines now. I am an otherwise peaceful
person but the respondent would irritate and annoy me and then I would get
very angry....... I have told the respondent many times that I am in
depression and that she should please be understanding about this.’ With
respect to the death of his mother, during cross-examination, he admitted :
‘It is correct that the respondent did come on the date of death only of my
mother and she left after the funeral ceremonies were over. It is correct that
the respondent again came after a day or two and stayed with me for about
two or three days’.
15. As with Gurmeet, Rajdeep’s examination-in-chief is also by way of
affidavit by way of evidence and parrots her written statement.
16. During cross-examination she admitted that the surname of her son at
the time of admission in the school was got written by her as her surname
before marriage and not the surname of her husband. She stated that after
her mother-in-law had died and she stayed with her husband at the
matrimonial home but justified returning to her matrimonial home on the
plea that her husband never asked to remain in her matrimonial house. As
per her, her husband told her to stay with her father for about 15 days and
join the matrimonial house at Jahangir Puri. We find a lot of irrelevant
cross-examination unrelated to the pleadings of the parties, for example a
suggestion has been given to Rajdeep, which she has denied, that she used to
taunt her husband of having illicit relations with a tenant.
17. Apparent from the fact that Rajdeep is in appeal is that the learned
Judge Family Court has returned a verdict in favour of Gurmeet.
18. Pithily stated the findings returned are that Gurmeet has established
that from the beginning of the marriage Rajdeep resisted physical relations
with him and that he has proved that she taunted him to marry his own
mother. That she disliked he being made a nominee in the policy which he
took in the name of his wife. That Rajdeep did not breastfeed the infant
child because she did not want her figure to be spoilt and lodged a false
complaint resulting in Gurmeet being kept in the lock-up for some time. In
para 58 the learned Family Court has returned a finding as under:-
“58. The parties come from the middle class section of the
society. They came to know each other through matrimonial
advertisement. They continued to meet and share their
thoughts for more than a year. Admittedly, they had a good
understanding of each other. The things, however, changed
after their marriage. The petitioner was frustrated since the
respondent did not take interest in having physical relations
with him. The petitioner himself had to plead with her and on
every such occasions, there used to be altercation between
them.”
19. In para 61 the learned Judge has returned a finding as under:-
“61. The petitioner had felt lonely, obviously, in the absence
of his wife and the newly born son. He, therefore, requested the
respondent to let him meet the minor son. She did allow him to
meet the son but she did not like the gifts brought by him (for
their son). She did not like her mother-in-law meeting the
minor child, also. There, apparently could be no reason except
the frustration with herself. She, admittedly, worked in shifts;
had to look after the infant son as well as her old ailing father.
It has come over the record that she herself had to purchase
medicines for him. Her father would have wished to have a
Ghar Jamai. Admittedly, the respondent had earlier got
engaged to someone else but the engagement had to be broken
as the person to whom she was engaged, apparently, did not
accept her father’s condition. It was, in such circumstances,
that the respondent and her father accepted the petitioner.”
20. In para 62 the learned Judge has returned a verdict as under:-
“62. She could have very well stayed at her matrimonial home
and her mother-in-law would have taken care of the minor son
(her grandson). She, however, did not exercise this option and
the reason is obvious. She had to take care and look after her
old ailing father and for that reason, she risked her own
relations with the petitioner and her in-laws.”
21. The finding in paragraph 58 returned by the learned Family Court
that the couple were meeting each other for more than a year before they
got married and thus had a good understanding of each other, was the
backdrop of the facts to be considered as to what went wrong after
marriage, in that, Rajdeep did not take interest in having physical relations
with Gurmeet and Gurmeet had to plead with her on every such occasion,
overlooks the admission made by Gurmeet during cross-examination. We
quote:-
“There were no big issue over sex but sometimes some small
arguments used to take place. In the beginning, there was some
resistance towards physical relations by the respondent.”
22. The finding returned in paragraph 61 overlooks that there is an
inherent contradiction in the case pleaded by Gurmeet concerning Rajdeep’s
attitude towards their son, in respect whereof we have already made a
comment in paragraph 12 above. There is no evidence that Rajdeep denied
access to Gurmeet to meet his son or did not like the father meeting the son
or the gifts brought by him. As per the learned Family Court the reason for
her frustration was the admission that she had to work in shifts and had to
look after an infant son and an ailing old father. The learned Judge had
returned a finding that her father would have wished her to have a son-inlaw
living with him. The learned Judge had returned a finding that Rajdeep
had admittedly got engaged earlier to someone but the engagement had to
be broken. There is no factual setting in the pleadings by Gurmeet in the
petition filed by him on these facts and we find that they emerge from the
cross-examination of Rajdeep. This is the version of Gurmeet put to her for
the first time, and we find that she has denied the same. Her crossexamination
on this aspect reads as under:-
“It is wrong to suggest that before marrying the petitioner, I
also got engaged with someone else. It is wrong to suggest that
my father has a condition that my son in law would stay with
him at my parental home. It is wrong to suggest that since the
person with whom I got first engaged had not agreed to the
said condition, first engagement was broken It is wrong to
suggest that the petitioner has also not agreed to the said
condition, therefore, it took us around two and a half years to
finally agreeing for the marriage.”
23. On this aspect the learned Judge has overlooked the crossexamination
of Gurmeet. The same is revealing. It reads:-
“I knew the respondent for about a year and a half prior to my
marriage. I also have met the respondent about 2-3 times prior
to my marriage. I was regularly talking to the respondent on
the telephone. (Vol.It is not as if only I used to call, the
respondent also used to call me). There was a good
understanding between me and the respondent and we would
share our inner-most thoughts with each other.
The marriage took place in fact a year and a half
approximately after the newspaper advertisement. My parents
were aware that she is the only child in her family though it was
not a point considered favourable or otherwise by my parents.
The respondent’s mother had expired long prior to all these
discussions.”
24. With respect to the findings returned in para 62 that the reason for
Rajdeep to leave the matrimonial house was that at her matrimonial home
she was to look after her mother-in-law, which she did not want to do since
she wanted to take care of her ailing father and thus she risked her
relationship with her husband and her in-laws, we find that the learned Judge
has overlooked the admission made by Gurmeet during cross-examination
as under:-
“My father had, and still has two immovable properties in his
name - one in Bahi Parmanand Colony and the other in
Jahangir Puri. I stayed with the respondent in Bhai Parmanand
Colony and our son was also born during our stay in Bhai
Parmanand Colony.”
25. Now, admittedly Gurmeet and Rajdeep had set up their residential
house at Bhai Parmanand Colony where the child was born to them.
Gurmeet’s parents admittedly lived separately in the house at Jahangir Puri.
Thus, it cannot be said that Rajdeep wanted to move away from the
matrimonial house because her mother-in-law was residing there and she
had to look after her mother-in-law, which he did not want to do.
26. The learned Trial Judge has also faulted Rajdeep for having lodged a
complaint with the police which resulted in, as claimed by Gurmeet, he
being kept in the lockup and beaten. As we have noted above, as per
Rajdeep she admitted going to the police station but claimed it being her
compulsion to do so because under influence of alcohol her husband was
beating her and her father was away to Punjab. The learned Judge has
overlooked the admission made by Gurmeet in his cross-examination as to
what happened thereafter. We quote:-
“When the police came, I was in the office. I came back home
in the evening and the police came and told me that I would
have to come to the police station because of some complaint by
the respondent. When I came home, it is correct that there
were some relatives of mine who were already in the house.
Some of my relatives did accompany me to the police station.
In the police station, I did say that if there are any
misunderstanding, we should talk over it and settle it at home.”
27. From the admission made by Gurmeet it is apparent that the police
came to the matrimonial house next day when he was in office. When he
returned home the police came once again and wanted him to report at the
police station. He went to the police station with his relatives. In the police
station he said that if there was a misunderstanding he and his wife would
sort it out. We wonder as to wherefrom the learned Judge has accepted
Gurmeet’s version that he was kept in the lock-up and beaten and that the
complaint lodged by Rajdeep was false. Admissions made by Gurmeet have
been completely overlooked.
28. In our opinion the most telling admissions made by Gurmeet which
throw light on what is the real cause of the problem have been overlooked
by the learned Judge. During cross-examination Gurmeet stated as under:-
“My father was a retired person from MTNL during this period.
My father was suffering from a chronic mental illness for which
he was being treated and was on regular medicines for the
same.
After my marriage, I would go into fits of depression for which
I would go to a doctor for consultation and treatment. The
consultant would prescribe medicines for me for my condition
but I would not take the same as I did not want to become
dependent upon medicines. Initially, I did take medicines but I
did not want to become dependent, so, I stopped taking the
same. I do not remember the name of the medicines now. I am
an otherwise peaceful person but the respondent would irritate
and annoy me and then, I would get very angry. This situation
would arise perhaps once or twice a month. It is incorrect that
I ever tried to squeeze the neck of the respondent.”
29. The real problem obviously was Gurmeet suffering from depression,
and though Gurmeet has not admitted it, we see no reason to disbelieve
Rajdeep’s version that it was due to excessive intake of alcohol. Gurmeet’s
admission that he would not take the medicine prescribed with the
justification for the conduct being, that he did not want to become dependent
upon medicines establishes what Gurmeet has admitted : he being irritable
and exploding with anger at the drop of the hat.
30. From the totality of the evidence, picking up pieces akin to that of a
jigsaw puzzle and putting them in place, the clear picture which emerges is
that Rajdeep showed behaviour as would any other newly married working
girl. She shared her soul and her body with her husband and even Gurmeet
reciprocated but unfortunately circumstances over took him and for which
he is responsible. It was alcoholism. This led him to bouts of depression.
Gurmeet being a nurse took him to a doctor. Anti-depression medicines
were prescribed. Gurmeet had a phobia of becoming dependent on the
medicines and he stopped taking the same. He became irritable and prone
to anger at the drop of the hat. Rajdeep’s father never desired Gurmeet to
live with him so that Rajdeep could serve him. Rajdeep and Gurmeet set up
their matrimonial home in the house of Gurmeet’s father at Bhai Parnamand
Colony. Gurmeet’s parents lived at Jahangir Puri and thus Rajdeep leaving
her matrimonial house to avoid serving her in-laws is not even in the realm
of a possibility. Rajdeep, as any woman would desire, wanted to have a
baby. She conceived. The version of Gurmeet that she wanted to abort the
foetus and when the baby boy was born she did not nurse him and breastfeed
him is false. She never denied Gurmeet access to the son. Gurmeet’s
version that on the one hand she did not desire a child and on the other hand
she kept him away from the child and took away the child with her cannot
stand together.
31. We conclude by bringing the curtains down holding that neither
cruelty nor desertion have been proved. Gurmeet’s drunkenness and
refusing to take anti-depression medicines is the foundation of the problem.
Rajdeep’s desire to live with her husband has been established through her
testimony and admissions made by Gurmeet, provided Gurmeet takes antidepression
medicines which would inhibit his violent behaviour leads us to
hold that though as a matter of fact Rajdeep left the matrimonial house but it
was without any animus to withdraw from the consortium and the fact of
desertion being the result of the conduct of Gurmeet would be in law be a
case of constructive desertion and thus the appeal is allowed. Impugned
judgment and decree dated April 10, 2013 is set aside. HMA No.303/2011
filed by Gurmeet is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(PRATIBHA RANI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 01, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment