Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 48 (MP)

Madanlal Gangle v. Manjula

2004-01-16

A.K.AWASTHY

body2004
JUDGMENT Appellant-petitioner has filed this appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 23.7.1997 in Civil Suit No. 6-A/95 whereby his petition filed for the divorce on the ground of cruelty was dismissed. The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage between appellant and the respondent was solemnized in the year 1992 according to the Hindu rites and customs and both were working in a Government College as Lecturers and in the year 1995 son was born out of the wedlock. The case of the appellant petitioner is that' his wife was in habit of insulting and misbehaving and whenever he went to meet his wife at Jaora, where she was posted as Lecturer, the respondent forced him to prepare meals and wash clothes and do other domestic work. That the respondent has refused to live with him and she has not turned up other matrimonial house even at the time of the death of his father. That the defendant has got herself aborted without the consent and the know ledge of the appellant and that at the time of the delivery of his son in 1995, she left the matrimonial house just after few days of the delivery. The appellant has submitted that the respondent is not interested in living with him and her behaviour with him was cruel and as such, the marriage be dissolved by the decree of divorce. The defendant has denied that she used to force her husband to prepare the meal or do the domestic work or that she misbehaved or insulted her husband. It is further alleged that she made an application for her transfer to Rajpur where her husband was posted but her application was not allowed by the Department. The respondent has further pleaded that after one year of her marriage, she got herself aborted due to the advice of the doctor and her ill-health. The respondent has alleged that the appellant was in habit of physically assaulting her and he used to take out all her pay and the appellant has also beaten her father. The respondent has alleged that the appellant is greedy husband and he used to demand money and gold ornaments as dowry and she was several times beaten by him to satisfy his greed of dowry. The respondent has alleged that the appellant is greedy husband and he used to demand money and gold ornaments as dowry and she was several times beaten by him to satisfy his greed of dowry. The respondent has further alleged that she has lodged the report with the police against the cruel behaviour of her husband. The respondent has further alleged that the appellant has made false allegations in the petition and as such, it be dismissed. The learned trial Court, after framing the issues, has examined petitioner as PW 1, his brother Suman PW 2, Mangilal PW 3, and from the opposite side, Manjula DW 1 and Sanjay DW 2. The learned trial Court has held that the appellant has failed to prove the ground of causing of mental cruelty by the respondent and that the allegations made by him are petty, flimsy and exaggerated and as such, his petition for divorce is not tenable. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and ignored the serious lapses by the wife and as such, the decree of divorce be passed on the ground of cruelty. Petitioner Madanlal PW 1 has made the following allegations against his wife: (a) That his wife was in habit of forcing him to prepare the meal, wash the clothes and do other domestic work. (b) That she has not turned upto see him even after the death of his father. (c) That his wife was not prepared to bear his child and got the abortion without his consent or knowledge. (d) That the defendant is not willing to get herself transferred to the place where he was posted and she was not coming to live with him. The petitioner PW 1 has admitted in para 13 of his cross-examination that when he asked his wife to get herself transferred, then she told him that she has made the application for her transfer but the authorities are not transferring her. The defendant has also stated on oath that she was not transferred even after her application and efforts to get her transferred to the place where the petitioner was living. The defendant has also stated on oath that she was not transferred even after her application and efforts to get her transferred to the place where the petitioner was living. That defendant has further stated that she got herself aborted after one year of the marriage because she was ill and the doctor had advised her not to bear the child. It is clear from the evidence that at the time of the alleged abortion after one year of the marriage, the defendant was living away from her husband and she was also teaching in the College. Consequently, in the aforesaid circumstances, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in holding that the abortion by the defendant is not a ground of causing mental cruelty to her husband. The defendant has denied on oath that she used to force her husband to prepare the meal or do the domestic work. The husband and wife both are educated" and they are Government servants and even if the wife has " asked her husband to prepare the meal or do the domestic work then, it was not an act of cruelty by the wife towards her husband. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the petitioner is exaggerating the petty disputes between husband and wife in order to make out the ground of divorce. The incident alleged by the petitioner are the ordinary wear and tear of the matrimonial life and looking to the nature of the allegation, the ground of cruelty to dissolve the marriage is not made out. The appeal is devoid of merits and it is, hereby, dismissed.