IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.207-M of 2004 Date of Decision: January 07, 2008 Smt.Sudha Rani @ Kiran .......Appellant. Versus Pardeep Kumar .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Raman Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Namit Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. --- S. D. ANAND, J. 1. Appellant is the wife whose plea for the grant of decree of divorce on allegation of dowry-related cruelty was declined by the learned Trial Court. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, on 2.7.2001 at Karnal. They co-habited at the matrimonial house in village Dathera, Tehsil Jhinjhana, District Muzaffar Nagar (UP). However, no issue was born out of their union. From the very beginning, the respondent-husband and his parents indicated that they were not satisfied with the adequacy of the dowry brought by the appellant. In that context, the respondent and his parents always taunted her. Apart there from, they openly declared that the appellant had no place in the matrimonial house unless she brings cash amount and a motor cycle of FAO No.207-M of 2004 -2- Hero Honda make from her natal family. Istri dhan, jewellery and valuable clothes etc. were taken by her in-laws and were not returned to her. In all, the appellant stayed at the matrimonial house for a period of only 12 days i.e. from 2.7.2001 to 14.7.2001. During that period, she was belaboured by the respondent. On 15.7.2001, she was beaten up and turned out of the matrimonial house in wearing apparel. Ever since then, she is residing at her natal house. It was on the above averment that the appellant-wife preferred a plea for the grant of decree of divorce. 3. The respondent-husband offered a plea of plain denial. It was averred that the appellant left the matrimonial house on the pretext of visiting her natal house. She took along, all her clothes and golden ornaments. However, when the respondent went over to the natal house of the appellant to fetch her, she and her parents refused to send her along and informed him that she would join her matrimonial company only when he severes his relations with his parents and shifts to Karnal. The plea indicated was that the appellant being an 'advanced' lady was not in a position to live in a village. 4. The learned Trial Court recorded a finding that the appellant- wife had not been able to prove that she had been subjected to any dowry- related torture or cruelty by the respondent-husband or his parents. 5. The appellant-wife is in appeal. 6. It may be noticed, at the very outset, that the version presented in the course of the petition is that the appellant was turned out of the matrimonial house in three bare clothes on 15.7.2001 after having been belaboured and she is residing at her natal house since then. In the course of the petition, there was no averment that the respondent-husband and his FAO No.207-M of 2004 -3- father accompanied her to her natal house. However, in the course of the substantive evidence, the appellant-wife categorically testified that she was dropped by her husband and father-in-law at her natal house. This fact is apparent from a perusal of her affidavit, Exhibit P1, which was tendered into evidence by her in lieu of examination-in-Chief. In fact, her father Suraj Bhan and her mother Mst. Shakuntla also averred (in the course of their affidavits Exhibit PIII and PIV respectively) that the appellant had been left at her natal house by the respondent-husband and his father. It is one thing to aver that she had been turned out of the matrimonial house in three bare clothes after having been belaboured and it is quite another thing to aver that her husband and father-in-law accompanied her to her natal house. 7. Furthermore, it is in the cross-examination of none else or other than the appellant herself that “my husband and my father-in-law had brought me to my parental home. At that time, there had been no dispute between us”. In the preceding sentence, she had made an averment that “regarding the maltreatment at my matrimonial home, I had not made any complaint or anything told about it to anyone” . 8. It requires pertinent notice that the appellant-wife stayed in the matrimonial company of her husband only for a period of 12 days. She has not indicated any precise instance of dowry-related torture or mal- treatment. On her own showing, she did not complain about the alleged mal-treatment or dowry demand to any one. Apart from the contradiction in her pleadings and substantive evidence about the circumstances under which she came to her natal house, she conceded that there was no dispute between her and her in-laws till her husband and father-in-law left her at FAO No.207-M of 2004 -4- her natal house (on 15.7.2001). It would appear quite unnatural that a wife would not complain about the mal-treatment and dowry-related torture to her parents even when she comes over to her natal house. A period of 12 days is too short for a wife to form a conclusive opinion that she does not want to live with the husband. 9. It also requires notice that in the course of cross-examination, her father Suraj Bhan testified for the first time that the appellant complained of mal-treatment at the matrimonial house as she was of black complexion. This averment neither finds mention in the pleadings nor was it testified on oath even by the appellant herself. 10. In the light of foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the appellant appears to be of over-sensitive temperament who could not withstand what may, at worst, be described as the ordinary wear and tear of the matrimonial life. This inferential observation had been recorded for want of any precise instance of mal-treatment and dowry-related torture at the matrimonial house at the hands of the respondent. 11. The economic and scientific strides made by our motherland notwithstanding, we basically continue to nurture sensitive feelings about the matrimonial ties. Ours, by and large, continues to be a conventional society where the parents of an estranged wife would make all-out endeavour to sort out things so as to preserve the matrimonial ties. It is not to suggest that an Indian female is expected to accept torture at the matrimonial house for any length of time. The only purpose of making a mention of the Indian societal environment is to stress the sanctity which we till date attach to the matrimonial relationship. Both the spouses are expected in their own interest, in the interest of their family and also in the FAO No.207-M of 2004 -5- larger interest of the Society to accommodate each other and perform matrimonial obligations vis-a-vis each other. There would, of course, be vicissitudes in the course of day to-day matrimonial life but those having concern for preserving sanctity of marriage would enjoy matrimonial life and withstand everything which comes their way as an aberration. 12. The learned Trial Court recorded a well-reasoned judgment, in the course whereof the pleas put forth by the parties were noticed and dealt with. There is nothing irregular in the manner of appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court. 13. The appeal is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. ( S. D. ANAND ) January 07, 2008 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether referred to reporter ? Yes/No