JUDGMENT
Barde, J.
1. The respondent from the proceedings for dissolution of marriage, being Petition No. A. 166/94, decided by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, has filed this appeal against the decree of dissolution passed on 22-4-1995.
2. The present respondent – husband filed the petition on the following grounds :–
(a) The marriage of the parties took place on 26-5-1990 at Jintoor (District: Parbhani). For the first 2-3 months, Swati – respondent behaved well. At that time, the old mother of the petitioner was staying with them at Aurangabad. The respondent started to give insulting treatment to the old mother of the petitioner. She used to abuse the old mother of the petitioner. When the mother had gone out of the house, she was locking the house and was going out and keeping his mother outside the house for hours together. Her behaviour was of suspicious nature. She was going for picture and hoteling alone. Unknown persons were visiting her and when mother of the petitioner asked her about this, she was retorting arrogantly. All this behaviour was causing mental torture to the petitioner and to the mother of the petitioner. Sometimes she was giving threats that she would commit suicide and would see that the petitioner and her mother were jailed.
(b) Because of this cruel behaviour of the respondent, it became impossible for the mother of the petitioner to stay at Aurangabad. So, on 12-6-1991, when the petitioner had gone to office, mother of the petitioner left his house. When the petitioner returned home, he found that the mother was not there. He made enquiry with the respondent. Then the respondent told that his mother quarreled with her and left the house and gave threats to the petitioner. It became difficult for the petitioner to keep his equilibrium at home as well as in the office.
(c) The petitioner approached the parents of the respondent to request them to give some advice to the respondent. But her parents drove him out of the house and threatened him. At that time, the petitioner had taken the respondent to the house of her parents.
(d) On 20-7-1991, the petitioner again went to the house of parents of the respondent, to take her back to his home. At that time, the respondent said that she wanted to marry a Doctor and she demanded divorce. She insulted him saying that he was not drawing a salary even of Rs. 2000/-. Her father gave threats to him and drove him out of the house.
(e) On 28-11-1991, father of the petitioner and one unknown person went to the office of the petitioner where he was working. The petitioner gave them tea and welcome them. They asked him whether he was ready to cohabit with the respondent. He told that he was ready to cohabit with the respondent but she was giving cruel treatment. They should advise her to behave properly. Then, the father of the respondent and the other person started to scuffle with the petitioner and threatened that they would kill him. The office Manager then asked them not to create trouble in the office and then asked them to leave office. The petitioner was insulted in this way before his co-workers in the office. On 7-12-1991, the petitioner reported to the Police about whatever had happened.
(f) On 10-5-1992, the respondent and her mother went to village Dongaon, the native place of the petitioner where his mother was staying. There, they gave threats to mother of the petitioner, forcibly entered into the house of mother of the petitioner and scuffled with her. The mother of the petitioner was, therefore, under great fear.
(g) On 21 -7-1992, during recess time, the petitioner saw that the respondent and her father were coming to his office. The petitioner was afraid and, therefore, he was trying to leave that place on his motorcycle. The father of the respondent caught the motorcycle. However, the petitioner somehow escaped from that place and on 24-7-1992, he again made an application to the Commissioner of Police about the behaviour of the respondent and her relatives.
(h) The petitioner has contended that the respondent made a complaint to Mahila Takrar Niwaran Samiti, Parbhani, and the petitioner was made to visit the office of Superintendent of Police. Parbhani, again and again. There also, the respondent did not take a compromising attitude.
(i) The petitioner has contended that because of this cruel treatment of the respondent, he has become pessimistic. This has caused adversely on his mental and physical condition. It has become impossible for him to cohabit with the respondent. He fears that the respondent may make any false allegations against him and may insult him and, therefore, he has prayed that the decree for divorce be given.
3. The respondent – Swati filed a written statement and rejected all the allegations made against her. She had stated that she was behaving properly with the petitioner and his mother. She never insulted the petitioner or his mother. She was never going out for cinema and hoteling alone. The petitioner was always suspecting her. She has denied that she drove out mother of the petitioner from the house at Aurangabad. She also denied that she said that she wanted to marry a Doctor and she demanded divorce from the petitioner. The instances regarding threats given to the petitioner in office and outside office, quoted by the petitioner, are totally denied by the respondent.
4. The respondent has contended that after the marriage, when she was residing at Aurangabad with the petitioner, she was visiting Jintoor for further eduction. The petitioner wanted to marry a beautiful woman. He had developed habit of drinking and because of that, he was beating her even on minor disputes. Even then, she bore all the ill-treatment and cohabited with him. She has stated that she is not willing for divorce. She desires to cohabit with the petitioner and, therefore, she has prayed that the petition be dismissed.
5. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on recording evidence of the parties, held that the petitioner has proved that the respondent treated him with cruelty. However, she held that the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent deserted him continuously for a period of two years and above, before filing of the petition. On the ground of cruelty, the decree for dissolution of marriage is passed by the learned Judge.
6. Both sides have led evidence in this matter and, therefore, it has become necessary to see how far the petitioner has made out the case that the respondent gave him cruel treatment.
7. The deposition of Ravindra, the petitioner, is at Exhibit 13 and he has restated all those instances which are pleaded in the petition. He has added one more circumstance to show that the respondent treated him with cruelty. He has stated that there was no sexual intercourse between him and the respondent since marriage till separation. He made various attempts to have sexual intercourse but the respondent did not allow him to have sexual intercourse.
8. The petitioner has produced on record, certain correspondence between him, his mother and his sister, also, between him and his father-in-law. He has also produced on record, the copies of various complaints made by him to the Police. The evidence of the petitioner and even that of respondent is sufficient to come to the conclusion that they were not leading happy married life. There were quarrels and disputes. The circumstances also indicate that the fault must be lying on both sides.
9. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent did not like him. She wanted to marry a Doctor or Engineer and, therefore, she was insulting him and his mother. Though the learned Judge of the Family Court has believed this aspect of the case, we do not find any substance in this contention. It was a arranged marriage. Proper enquiry must have been made by the respondent as well as her father regarding the eduction and service of the petitioner. The respondent herself was educated upto Second Year B.Com. when the marriage took place. The petitioner had allowed her to take further education after the marriage and, therefore, she had rejoined the study. In such circumstances, it is not believable that the respondent married the petitioner without knowing the truth about the status of the petitioner.
10. An artificial reason is being given by the petitioner to show why the respondent was behaving in a particular manner, as alleged by him. While scanning the evidence of the parties -in a proceedings under the Marriage Act, mere words of the parties should not be taken into consideration. But all the surrounding circumstances before and after the marriage must be taken into consideration to find out where truth lies.
11. The petitioner has stated that on 28-11-1991, father of the respondent and one person had been to his office. He welcomed them, offered tea and thereafter the quarrel ensued between him and the father of the respondent. He has narrated this incident in his deposition also. However, as per the contention of the petitioner, he had left wife at her father’s house on 20-6-1991. At that time, he was threatened and was abused.
12. Again on 20-7-1991, he had been to the house of father of respondent with his relatives. But again he was insulted by the respondent and by her father and actually he was thrown out of the house by giving threats. If such was the behaviour of the respondent and her father, is it believable that when her father again went to the office of the petitioner on 28-11-1991, he would have welcomed them and would have offered tea? Either the first instances which are being narrated by the petitioner are false or later incident of 28-11-1991 is false. There is no proper explanation from the petitioner as to how he would welcome father of the respondent when he was treated so badly on previous two occasions. It appears that the petitioner is taking advantage of certain circumstances, he is twisting those circumstances and placing his case before the Court.
13. The evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses indicates that the respondent had gone to village Dongaon to see the mother of the petitioner and to request her to allow her to cohabit. But here again, it is being contended that the behaviour of the respondent was very bad.
14. In the petition, it is alleged that the respondent and her mother forcibly entered into the house of the mother, scuffled with her and threatened her. In his deposition, he has stated that the respondent had gone to village Dongaon with her father. He received a telegram from his uncle informing that the respondent had been to Dongaon and directing him not to visit Dongaon. He has further stated that father of the respondent did not visit the house of Vasant, petitioner’s uncle. But only respondent had gone to the house of petitioner’s uncle and she stayed there ior some days. When his aunt asked her, she told that the petitioner had sent her to stay there. From his deposition, it appears that at that time, his mother left Dongaon for Amravali to the house of sister of the petitioner,
15. Vasant, paternal uncle of the petitioner, in his deposition at Exhibit 29, has stated that the respondent had been to Dongaon and she told that the petitioner had asked her to go to his house. The respondent went to her mother-in-law’s house. But then her mother-in-law went to her daughter’s house at Amravati. From the cross-examination of Vasant, it appears that the respondent, at that time, had stayed at his house for 8 days. It was suggested to him that the mother of the petitioner locked her house and stayed at her friend’s house on that night and he has also admitted in the cross-examination, that he told the respondent that the mother of the petitioner had left Dongaon to bring petitioner to Dongaon.
16. So, evidence of Vasant nowhere suggest that the respondent and her mother had been to Dongaon and they had visited house of mother of the petitioner and they had any quarrel with the mother of the petitioner. While the petitioner states that the father of the respondent did not take respondent to the house of Vasant, but left her at S. T. Bus Stand at Dongaon. Vasant states that the respondent’s father had brought respondent at his house and then he went away.
17. Kalavati, mother of the petitioner, in her deposition at Exhibit 34, state about this incident, that the respondent and her father had come to Dongaon. She had gone to temple. The respondent and her father went to house of Vasant, the elder brother of husband of Kalavati. Vasant asked her father to see her. But father of respondent left Dongaon without meeting her. She has further stated that at about 4 0′ Clock, when she had returned from the temple, the respondent met her and told her that the petitioner had asked her to reside there. Then the neighbours asked the respondent, whether she had brought any letter from the petitioner and she told that she had not brought any letter from the petitioner and she did not need any such letter. Kalavati has further stated that the respondent asked her to call the petitioner. But thereafter, Kalavati herself left Dongaon for Amravati to stay with her daughter.
18. So, if the evidence of these three witnesses is read together, it will be clear that altogether false and baseless allegation are made against the respondent, that the respondent went to Dongaon with her mother, forcibly went into the house of mother of the petitioner, scuffled with her and threatened her. From the evidence of the petitioner and evidence of the respondent, it appears that when the respondent and her father were asking him to take back the respondent for cohabitation, he said that he would do so only if elders from his house would allow this. Because of this, the respondent and her father had gone to Dongaon to obtain permission of mother of the petitioner. However, the mother of the petitioner left Dongaon for Amravati. The respondent stayed at the house of paternal uncle of the petitioner for 8 days, waiting for the petitioner and then she returned to her father’s house.
19. These circumstances clearly indicate that there were attempts on the part of the respondent for resuming cohabitation. But the petitioner was not willing for cohabitation. Not only that, he went on making false allegations against the respondent and her father. He even filed complaints with Police as per his own statements.
20. The evidence of Satyawati, sister of the petitioner, is at Exhibit 28. She says that she once visited house of the petitioner at Aurangabad. At that time, respondent was there. She did not serve fresh food and she ill-treated her and her relatives. But it cannot be forgotten that she being the sister of the petitioner, she is coming forward to corroborate the evidence of the petitioner. We do not find much substance in her evidence.
21. The petitioner’s witness, Abdul Rauf, in his deposition at Exhibit 30, is giving story what happened when he once visited house of the petitioner. But that is also very minor incident and the petitioner is trying to blow it up out of proportion. The petitioner’s witness Chandrakant is the husband of sister of petitioner and he is stating in his deposition at Exhibit 31, that he tried to intervene and to bring about the compromise between the petitioner and the respondent. The reconciliation was not possible. He also says that he and petitioner and his relatives asked the respondent’s relatives to give divorce. But they were not ready to give divorce. This evidence of the Chandrakant clearly indicates that the topic of divorce was opened by the petitioner and his relatives and not by the respondent and her relatives.
22. Gangu is the last witness of the petitioner. Her evidence is at Exhibit 35. She states that she is cousin of the mother of the petitioner. She has stated that once she visited house of the petitioner at Aurangabad and the petitioner told her that he and respondent were sleeping separately in separate rooms. She has also stated that prior to 3 years, in the month of Shravan and Ashadha, respondent had been to Dongaon with her mother. There was quarrel between respondent and her mother-in-law. She being neighbour of petitioner’s mother, she came to know about it. She has further stated that the respondent was saying that she wanted to live in the house of mother of the petitioner and the petitioner’s mother told her that she wanted to go to Amravati and she would not allow respondent to stay there. She has stated that then she took the respondent to the he use of uncle of the petitioner.
23. It is rather surprising that the mother or no other near relative of the petitioner is saying that the petitioner ever told that the petitioner and respondent were sleeping separately in separate rooms. But this distant relative Gangu is saying so. It clearly means that she is got up witness. Whatever she is saying, about visit of the respondent to Dongaon, is not at all corroborated either by Kalavati herself or by Vasant and she is also not stating that any quarrel took place between mother of the petitioner, and, respondent and her mother or any scuffle had taken place. So, evidence of this witness is also of no use to the petitioner.
24. The deposition of the respondent is at Exhibit 37 and she has given her side of story and she is putting all blame on the petitioner. Her deposition also indicates that after the marriage, she took admission in college at Aurangabad for completing her studies and she used to go to Jintoor and stay there for 15 days in a month for the purpose of study. She has stated that for the first 3-4 months, they lived happy married life. She has stated that they lived together for about 9 months and during that period, sexual Intercourse had taken place on many occasions.
25. The respondent, in her deposition, has further stated that she has filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights, in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.). Parbhant, being Petition No. 7/95. The certified copy of that petition is also produced on record. She has produced on record, report of the Superintendent of Police, Parbhani, regarding the efforts made by him and Manila Suraksha Samiti to bring about the compromise between the respondent and the petitioner. This report indicates that the petitioner made reckless, baseless and false allegations and was saying that he wanted divorce. He refused to cohabit with the respondent.
26. It is worth nothing that the Superintendent of Police, Parbhani, is altogether independent person. He had to look into the matter, only because it had come through Mahila Suraksha Samiti. He arranged many meetings. But only on two occasions, the petitioner attended the meeting. His report dated 14-4-1995 indicates that even he was not satisfied with the allegations made by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the deposition of the respondent is sufficiently corroborated to hold that the allegations made by the petitioner are false.
27. The deposition of father of the respondent is at Exhibit 41 and he also has supported the case of the respondent. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the father of the respondent to say that he is giving false evidence. Generally, the desire of the father is that his daughter should cohabit with her husband. He never tries to break the marriage. It appears that he tried to bring about the compromise. However, the response of the petitioner was not proper. The last witness of respondent is Shriram. He states that the petitioner and respondent, both are his relatives. He further states that they cohabited for about one year. Once in a meeting, he tried to convince, the petitioner should take back the respondent for one month. But he refused to take her back even for that short period to bring about the compromise. So, here again, the case of the petitioner becomes very weak.
28. The entire evidence on record, as already pointed out, does indicate that there were some quarrels between the petitioner and the respondent. But many times, those were very minor quarrels. Then what made the petitioner to take such a step of leaving the respondent at the house of her father and then filing a petition for dissolution of marriage? The learned Judge of the Family Court has believed his evidence to hold that the cruel treatment at the hands of the respondent was reason for all this. However, she has failed to scan the evidence properly. No doubt, she has disbelieved the petitioner when he said that there was no sexual intercourse between him and the respondent and has come to the conclusion that there was sexual intercourse between the petitioner and the respondent.
29. The pleading and the evidence on record has to be scanned closely to find out the reason. In the pleading, the petitioner has stated that the respondent was going alone for hoteling and cinema. He has also stated that some persons were visiting her behind his back. It means, that he was suspecting character of the respondent. In the deposition, he states that behind his back, several boys used to visit his house and his mother was telling about the same. On Sunday and Saturday, whenever he was at house, students used to come and on seeing him, without talking to the respondent, they were going away. He has further stated that the respondent was going out of his house behind his back, without his permission. So, these statements also strengthen the conclusion that he was suspecting character of the respondent.
30. He has further stated in his deposition that the respondent refused to have sexual intercourse with him for 2-3 months and thereafter he did not ask for inter-course. There by he is suggesting that he never had sexual intercourse with the respondent.
31. There is one important circumstance. The respondent has filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the copy of the same is filed on record wherein she had made allegation that the petitioner compelled her for abortion when she was pregnant of 3 months. No doubt, neither the petitioner nor the respondent has stated anything about abortion of the respondent in their depositions. But when this document was brought on record, the learned Judge of the Family Court ought to have got this point clarified from the parties, especially when the petitioner had alleged that he never had sexual intercourse with the respondent.
32. The petitioner personally argued the matter before us and with respect to this statement in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner has stated that the medical termination of pregnancy took place at Aurangabad in one hospital and he was forced by the respondent to give consent for the same. It may be that this is not a statement on oath and cannot be a part of evidence. But the fact remains that the respondent was pregnant and there was medical termination of pregnancy at Aurangabad before she was left to the house of her father on 20-6-1991 by the petitioner. This circumstance makes it clear that the petitioner was suspecting character of the respondent.
33. There is no substance in his allegation that he had no sexual intercourse with her because, as per his own case, in the first 2-3 months after the marriage, the relations between the petitioner and respondent were proper and good. Even after the petitioner’s mother left the house of the petitioner, the petitioner and respondent were residing together in the same house at Aurangabad and it is very difficult to believe that during that period they had no sexual intercourse. However, for one reason or the other, the petitioner came to the conclusion that the respondent had extra marital relations and, therefore, there was medical termination of pregnancy and, therefore, there were quarrels between husband and wife.
34. As it is difficult for the petitioner to prove that the wife has committed adultery, the stand that the respondent treated him with cruelty, is taken by him by quoting the instances which are sometimes imaginary and sometimes blown out of proportion However, when the entire evidence is read closely and in between the lines, the reason for petition for dissolution of marriage becomes obvious. The reason is husband is suspecting character of wife.
35. When such baseless allegations are made against the wife with respect to her character, then no amount of other evidence of the petitioner, about the behaviour of the wife would be sufficient to grant a decree for dissolution to the petitioner husband.
36. The learned Judge of the Family Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective by taking into consideration all the circumstances. At the face value of the evidence of the petitioner, she has believed the evidence of the petitioner. We find that the evidence of the petitioner falls short of proving the allegation of the cruelty against the respondent.
37. In the result. Family Court Appeal No. 4/1995 is allowed. The decree for dissolution of marriage, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, in petition No. A. 166/94, on 22-4-1995, is set aside. The petition for dissolution of marriage, filed by the present respondent, is dismissed. The respondent – original petitioner to pay costs — to the appellant throughout original respondent and bear his own costs.