IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
First Appeal No. 237 of 1979
Decided On: 26.08.1981
The Chandhoks were married on 27.2.1944 during Peshawar. In 1974, they migrated to Delhi. One daughter and 3 sons were innate out of a wedlock. After 34 years of marital existence father O.N. Chandhok filed a petition or divorce on 31.5.1977 on a belligerent of abandonment and cruelty. The mother Lajwanti Chandhok pleaded opposite cruelty and also purported that a father had extra-marital family with dual Sethi girls, namely, Satish and Vinod. The schooled Additional District Judge found that cruelty on a partial of a mother was established. By his sequence of 21.9.1979 he authorised a focus and dissolved a marriage. Aggrieved, a mother has come in appeal. The father has filed a cross-objection severe a anticipating that abandonment was not proved.
2. we have listened arguments. My attempts during settlement and warn have failed.
3. The claim of a father is that right from a day of marriage, Lajwanti began to provide him with mental and earthy cruelty and it had now turn unbearable. She is haughty, fractious and aggressive. She used to Jose rage on him though any rhyme or reason, used to abuse him really frequently, insult and manhandle him and used to play chappals, shoes, eyeglasses and bottles during him. She secretly indicted him of immorality. She refused to live with him in a year 1975 after their eldest son Ashok left for Canada, She was supposing with a belligerent building accommodation and a whole family changed up-stairs, though even afterwards she did not surrender rather her acts of cruelty continued to multiply. She harmed him once on 26.1.1976 and again on 18.5.1976. She started perfectionist send of a residence in her name and from May, 1976 started promulgation all forms of sealed or unsigned letters or pseudonymous letters to his employers, friends, kin and officers including a primary Minister, realigning his character. He changed with a other members of a family to another residence in Greater Kailash in June, 1976. Yet, on Mar 15, 1977 she pelted stones on his car. It had turn unfit for him to live with her any more. He told me that he has blood vigour and suffers from heart trouble. Divorce was required for his really survival.
4. In her reply, a mother pronounced that until a year 1960, a family between them were zero though cordial. Thereafter, a father took to celebration and womanising and cultivated cognisance with a girls, Satish Sethi and Vinod Sethi. That murderous her. She became hysteric and objected to his unlawful connectors with those dual girls. She is still prepared to live with him though in a residence in that she has been living. The petition suffers from check and had been finished with a belligerent to divorce her so that he might have giveaway unlawful tie with a aforesaid girls.
5. Apart from all what happened compartment 1975, it is transparent that from 18.5.1976 onwards she started essay unknown letters to a Prime Minister, late Shri Sanjay Gandhi, Shri Jag Pravesh, I.G. Police, S.D.M, Lajpatnagar and to his relations. She also lodged reports opposite a father with a police. She addressed a minute (Ex A-3) antiquated 16.3.1978, to a Vice President of a Distillers Association where a father is operative as a Secretary. She finished complaints to Ch. Charan Singh and filed a censure opposite him underneath sections 107/150 Cr.P.C. She hurled stones on him, causing as damage in a forehead. On 26.1.1976 when his hermit came to see him a mother banged a doorway and when he non-stop a door, she abused him and strike him with kerosene oil pipe. She hurled chappals on him in a participation of his son Ashok and his wife. The father refuted a allegations that he had kept goondas in a residence as tenants and on 18.5.1976 had ripped her garments and gave her a oppressive beating.
6. The mother certified that a father kept her in comfort and even financed her outing abroad though a disruption occurred in 1975 and from 1976 a father is not vital with her. She certified that she wrote letters opposite a father to a Prime Minister, her son Shri Sanjay Gandhi, and Shri Charan Singh underneath her possess signatures and also to Shah Commission. The allegations opposite her are upheld by no reduction than a verbal testimony of her sons Surinder Kumar (AW2) and Raj Kumar (AW3) and a letters of a eldest one Ashok who is abroad. She maybe has, as she told me, a sympathies of her daughter who is married and lives in U.S.A. She still persists in her indictment that a father is carrying unlawful connectors with Satish Sethi and Vinod Sethi, Her allegations of opposite can't be supposed unless she herself wants a divorce, nor does it seem to me to be a box in that a father can be pronounced to be holding advantage of his possess wrong. Whatever have been a position progressing and for whatsoever reason a purported vicious control of a mother was tolerated by a husband, a uninformed hitch of cruelty began with a spate of complaints to his employers and other authorities that she be-;an to board opposite him in sequence to denounce him. That is a worse form of cruelty that a mother had inflicted on her father that he is not prepared to bear with and condone. It is a box in that it was intensely unpleasant to disintegrate a matrimony after it has lasted for 36 years, though it appears book that a schooled Additional District Judge has finished what should be finished in a circumstances. At a time of a reconciliation, they gave me a sense that they were married opposite their wishes and we found that mania has so overtaken them that it was formidable for them to live together. The father even pronounced that if his matrimony was not dissolved and a mother continued to act in a demeanour she is doing, his life was not some-more value living. He will during slightest be means to though by a chairman who no some-more enjoyed that status. Divorce will give that advantage.
7. Mr. Nijhawan on interest of a mother appellant concluded that a argue between a parties began in a year 1960 and cohabitation ceased in a year 1974. Yet, he confirmed that no box for divorce was finished out. He complained that her justification was sealed while a send petition was tentative and no demurral was granted. But this protest is though basis, given she filed no list of witnesses and on each date opposite witnesses were cited. Even when her rider (C.R. 141/79) was accepted, and a High Court destined to concede her to lead evidence, she did not caring to move a witnesses.
8. Mr. Nijhawan nest forked out that a schooled hearing justice has erred in holding into care a letters of Ashok Kumar given Ashok Kumar was not examined. This justification has no effect given Ashok Kumar could not be brought to a declare box from Canada though and volume of irrational check and expenses. Mr. Nijhawan serve urged that a minute of a mother Ex. A-4 of 16.3.1978 to a Distilleries Association in that a father is employed and a censure (Ex. A-5) finished to a S.D.M. on 2.1.1978 should not be taken into consideration. Mr. Nijhawan settled that these are harmless papers that a mother was forced to write in sequence to find protection. Ex. A-3 was a illustration of 12.10.1976 by a people of a Mohalla not sealed by her. He settled that there is no acceptable justification to infer that unknown letters were created by a mother and there is serve no justification that a father was beaten by a siren or that a hermit carried a father to a sanatorium The decider next has believed these allegations on a basement of a respondent’s justification and we see no reason to differ from his findings. In these papers she purported that he has intent group of bad sense and wants to kill her and has begun a business of prostitution. Ex. A-4 and Ex. A-1) were created after a benefaction petition was filed. That all this control of a mother amounts to vicious treatment, finds support in a special acquiescence of Mr. Nijhawan that a Sethi lady came to a destruction accepting of Ashok and paid Rs. 100/- and this could not be though any sinister stress and given a father was a abounding man, womanising is a required supporter of resources and a assign of a mother can't be discharged out of hand. This is a position during once daring and deprecable. Here is afterwards positively a box of matrimonial unhappiness and wretchedness caused by an undue and crude march of control deliberately and consciously followed in a dynamic demeanour in sequence to malign, disparage and wound a father joined with earthy violence, small, nonetheless critical in consequence. Even if one were to trust that a father was relocating in a association of other women that we trust is not true, we will like to call it an try to find condolence and magnetism in a place other than a place where it is his due to find and receive. The genuine problem is that a mother persisted with vicious insusceptibility to a feelings of a father in her brash debate of sarcasm and distress that entrance from a Hindu mother as she claims she is, can be zero though unpleasant in a extreme. Her control does not include merely of acts amounting to cruelty, though there is justification of an goal of being vicious that cuts some-more unkindly. Cruelty consists not in a control complained of though in a impact on a spouse. It is a final straw that breaks a camel’s back, that contingency be looked during in a light of progressing story and ubiquitous design of married life. we have had an arise to plead cruelty in Parihar v. Parihar, AIR 1978 Raj. 140, though cruelty can't be found on a basement of law reports conjunction on a basement of several acts seen in siege nor of any customary poise though in a light of a sum impact on a chairman of a angry father or wife. It is in a assemblage of a marital family and factors like age, health, living, culture, status, mind and even income that cruelty can be found. This relates some-more pertinently that it is purported to contain “injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. “ Treatment is with rigourously where a associate levels charges of filth formed upon, as in this case, guess or during best hearsay. It insults and injures.
9. we am of a perspective that there was justification plain and sufficient adequate to clear a anticipating that a life of a father has been subjected to cruelty and has turn obnoxious even for a male who has carried on with it right into his sixties. There is extent to endurance. Howsoever one might wise, multitude can't throw marriage. It is constraint of creation. It was rather consecrated and sacred so that couples live in peace, in fear of God and assistance keep patience in a community. Yet, it had to digest doors of exit as and when it becomes unreasonably, intolerable and converges into perfect bondage. I, therefore, find no belligerent for altering a preference of a justice below. There remained zero in a matrimony solely a name. The vows were forgotten. Incantations mislaid their spell. The schooled Judge next was right in rigourously gnawing a ties that had ceased to be contracting happy or purposeful.
10. we contend amen and boot this appeal. The cross-objection need not be examined and is discharged hereby. Let me, however, supplement that it is not easy as a justice next did, to pardon a mother of determined desertion. She refuses with strange stubbornness to go and live in a new matrimonial home and final of a father to come and live where she wishes to. The father shall bear a costs throughout.