JUDGMENT
M.L. Singhal, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this court dated 18.12.1987 allowing husband’s petition for divorce against the wife.
2. Facts of the case are as follows :-
Jaswant Singh (hereinafter to be referred as husband) instituted petition Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against Jasbir Kaur (hereinafter to be referred as wife) seeking dissolution of his marriage with her by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. He was married to her on 22.1.1984. A son was born to them on 27.11.1984 who is in her custody. There was cordiality between the two which was only short lived. She was under the influence of her parents since the inception of marriage. Since the inception of marriage, her parents had in view his property for being grabbed. She was pleading with him to separate from his parents. His father in law also coaxed him to separate himself from his parents. Finding that he was not agreeable to their suggestion to separate himself from his parents, she became curt and insolent. She was posted as teacher in Govt. High School, Dukheri near Ambala Cantt. In the beginning. She did not give up the job though he wanted her to give up the job and be with him always. He assured her that he would provide her every comfort in the matrimonial home. Her being in the job was an impediment in the way of his enjoying the conjugal society. She was assured that he would arrange some coaching school where she could coach children. She reduced her visits to him in the wake of his refusal to separate himself from his parents. Whenever she visited him in the matrimonial home, her behaviour towards them was improper and unbecoming of a dutiful wife. She would not cook food and perform other household chores. She would adopt stubborn posture hurling filthy abuse on him. She would abuse her sister-in-law and mother-in-law If an effort was made to calm and quiten her so that she did not behave indecently, she would try to beat him and her him. indecently, she would try to beat him and her sisters-in-law. Life became virtually a hell for him. She gave birth to a son on 27.11.1984 at PGI, Chandigarh. After the birth of that child, she came to his house only twice or thrice but did not stay for long. She stayed only for 2-3 days at a time During that spell her behaviour towards him was unwifely. She wanted him to have his share in the ancestral property separated from that of his parents and sell it and build a house at Mohali with the sale proceeds. After March/April, 1985J she never visited him and is putting up with her father at Mohali. Furthermore, she was not maintaining chastity of character. She Was learnt to be having intimate relationship with some ‘babu’ at village Dukheri. When he, sought to advise her to shun her intimacy with that person, she replied that he had no right to interfere with her private life and she admitted her intimacy with that person. Despite the intervention of the panchayats, she did not choose to return to the matrimonial fold.
3. Wife contested this petition urging that her parents never interfered with their matrimonial life. She never put forth any demand upon him that he should separate himself from his parents not her parents even put forth such a demand. He gave her beating and asked her to bring money from her parents so that he could purchase one acre of land in front of their new house beyond the Canal at village Sukhrampur Tapprian. She showed her inability to oblige him saying that her parents had already spent enough on her marriage and it was not possible for them to arrange amount of Rs. 70,000/-. It was denied that she Was carrying oh with anyone. In fact, the person named by him is Clerk aged about 58 years, whom people consult in official matters. She treated him like her father. She was always ready and willing to cohabit with him. She wrote many letters to take her back to the matrimonial home. She filed petition Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. He came once to the house of her parents with some gundas and gave out that he would take her to the matrimonial home only if they give him Rs. 70,000/-. He threatened her father that if he was unable to give Rs. 70,000/-, she should sign some blank papers so that deed of divorce could be’ scribed on it. She ignored these threats. On 27.7.1986, he came to her father’s house again along with a constable. Her parents agreed to send her to the matrimonial home if he gave them undertaking that he would not ill-treat her. Boot was rather on the other leg. it was he who treated her with” cruelty. He gave her beating and turned her out of the matrimonial home.
4. Additional District Judge, Ropar consolidated both the petitions into the divorce petition and disposed of both the petitions by means of common judgment dated 24.3.1987 whereby he-granted decree for divorce to the husband and declined relief of restitution of conjugal rights to the wife in view of his finding that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty.
5. Wife knocked the door of this court in appeal through FAO No. 90-M of 1?87 but suffered failure.
6. After having suffered failure in two courts, wife, did not relent. She has knocked the door of. this court through this Letters Patent Appeal.
7. In our opinion, husband has not been able to make out a ground for divorce. Wife has been serving as teacher since before her marriage to him There is no evidence that he imposed any condition during the period the negotiations for marriage were going on that the wife would give up the job and be a house wife altogether. In his cross-examination he admitted that she was in service prior to their marriage and there was no condition that his wife would give up her job after marriage. He consented to her remaining in job He stated that after; 1984 riots, he asked his wife to give up job. There is, however, no evidence that he asked his wife to give up job after 1984 riots. Even otherwise she was not supposed to give up her job and be altogether a house wife. Where a husband marries a working wife he has to adjust with her. He cannot impose upon the wile that she should cohabit with him at a particular place and at no other place- He has to work out some arrangement and that too in consultation with his wife, She was married to him on 22.1.1984. She have birth to a son on 27.11.1984 According to the husband, she left the; matrimonial home in March 1985 and thereafter she did not turn up to the matrimonial home. On 13.7.1986, he took panchayat to her parent’s house at Mohali. Her father refused to send her to the matrimonial home. He took panchayat on 20.7.1986 and 27.7.1986 for her rehabilitation into the matrimonial home. Her father refused to send her to the matrimonial home. Husband, reiterated what he’ had stated in his petition for divorce. In our opinion, there was lack of adjustment between them. They did not give adequate trial to their. marriage. Assuming that she did not cook meals for the family, the husband should have adjusted. He has father, brother, mother and sister-in-law. If, there had been intention on his part to avoid bickerings in them, he could have requested his mother or sister-in-law to cook meals for the family and not it made a point of prestige that as husband he must dominate and not adjust with her. It is not believable that she would abuse him, his parents and sister-in-law. It is not believable that she would coerce/maltreat him so as to compel him to separate himself from his parents and ask for a share in his father’s property. In his cross-examination, he admitted that she cooked meals in the beginning of marriage on her visits during holidays to them, she also performed other household chores. There is no evidence that the wife was living in, adultery with some person. Wife is in job putting up alone at the station of her posting. She has to confide in someone in times of need Husband should not have made such an allegation recklessly. He appears .to have, indulged in a character assassination without any basis. Husband did not implead him as, co-respondent in the petition for divorce. He has not been able to disclose his name nor his age and, therefore, we have to take that he was 57-58 years old on the staff of the school. Husband is also a teacher. There was lady teachers in the school. He has also to have terms with them. Wife has not grown suspicious about him. Husband, on the other hand, has, grown suspicious about her forgetting that marriage, is based on mutual trust and confidence, rupture in the matrimonial relations, is the consequence. Such rupture, cannot be viewed always as cruelty.
8. According to the husband, the wife did not turn up to the matrimonial home after March/April 1985 He filed petition for divorce on 29.7.1986. This shows his anxiety to get rid of his wife. If he had been anxious to save marriage, he would have, in the first instance called upon the wife, to turn up to the matrimonial home and not straightway run to the court seeking divorce.
9. Every act of discourtesy or disobedience on the part of the wife cannot be viewed as cruelty as the term cruelty is understood in matrimonial relations.
10. In Dastane N.G. v. Mrs. S. Dastane, AIR 1975 S.C. 1534, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have dealt with what cruelty in matrimonial relations is “Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily” or mental “or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger is the requirement of English Law. In our Law, however, the requirement is that conduct charged as cruelty should/be of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him/her to live with the other spouse. In this case, we are concerned with whether the husband has proved that the wife has treated him with such cruelty as to cause reasonable apprehension in his mind that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with her. Incidents cited by the husband as constituting cruelty can truly be described as the reasonable wear and tear of married life, which, have to be ignored. In many marriages each party can, if it so wills, discover many a cause for complaint but such grievances arise mostly from temperamental disharmony. Such disharmony or incompatibility is not cruelty and will not furnish a cause for the dissolution of marriage. We will therefore have regard only to grave and weighty incidents and consider these to find what place they occupy on the marriage canvas.”
11. It was further observed by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dastane v. Dastane that the society has a stake in the institution of marriage and therefore the erring spouse is treated not as a mere defaulter but as an offender. The social philosophy will have a bearing on the need to have clear proof of allegation before it is accepted as a ground for the dissolution of marriage. At the same time, Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed that Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not alter the standard of proof in civil cases. For proving cruelty, the requirement is not that the husband must prove the acts of cruelty beyond reasonable doubt.”
12. In the instant case we are not satisfied that the conduct complained of by the husband constituted cruelty. Husband appears to be a male chauvinist. He is employed as teacher. Wife is also employed as teacher. Both are employed at different places. Husband should have tried to see that the wife has to devote time to her job and she cannot be with him all the while. Husband should have been liberal. He should not have developed suspicion about his wife. Wife never suspected the husband any time before the institution of petition for divorce by the husband against her. It was only in evidence that she accused the husband of having sensual relationship with his sister-in-law which cannot be a ground for divorce because when the husband became on war with her and levelled unchastity/immorality against her, she could not be expected to lag behind and be only a silent listener. That was only by way of retaliation to the husband that she accused him of sensual relationship with his sister-in-law.
13. In this case, boot was rather on the other leg. It is husband, who brought an unfounded allegation against the wife. Unfounded allegation of adultery by the husband against the wife will constitute cruelty. How can a wife cohabit with the husband if he suspects her fidelity and feels that she is unchaste. It would bear repetition that marriage is founded on mutual trust and confidence. If for one reason or the other one spouse has lost this mutual trust or confidence, the spouse losing this mutual trust and confidence has no right to complaint that the other spouse has done any matrimonial wrong to him/her.
14. For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that there was absolutely no reason for the grant of divorce to the husband against the wife. So, this appeal is allowed with costs. Judgments and decrees passed by the learned Single Judge and by the learned Additional District Judge are set aside.