JUDGMENT
N.C. Kochhar, J.
1. This is husband’s appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) against the decree and judgment dated 17-10-1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer in Civil Misc. Case No. 165/1979 dismissing his petition under Section 13 of the Act. The case set up in the petition was as under:-
2. That after the marriage the respondent accompanied the appellant to his house in village Beer where she stayed with him for about four days and thereafter accompanied by her brother, came to her parents’ house from where she returned to the matrimonial home in August, 1978 and lived with the appellant for about 15 days and after that period she went to the house of her parents and returned to the matrimonial home on or about 25-1-1979 and thereafter went to her parents’ house on 16-2-1979 along with her father and since then she has been living with her parents. During the period that the respondent stayed with the appellant, her treatment towards the appellant and his parents was very cruel and contemptuous and she used abusive language towards him and his parents and treated them with cruelty. The instances of cruelty quoted in the petition were: (i) On one occasion in August, 1978 when the appellant and his friends and classmates Sriram and Ugam Lal visited him, the appellant asked the respondents to prepare tea for them, but she muttered very bad words and walked out. This conduct of the respondents caused great mental anguish and humiliation to the appellant; (ii) In August, 1978 on one occasion the respondent hit appellant’s mother with ‘Bhoonkni’ and this act of the respondent caused disgrace and humiliation to the appellant and his parents in the eye of his relations; (iii) That the respondent had been creating problems and difficulties affecting the normal routine life of the appellant and thereby putting obstacles in the peaceful pursuit of his studies; and (iv) That on 12-2-1979, the appellant asked the respondent to join him for holidaying to Benaras but she contemptuously spurned his offer which caused great mental distress to the appellant. With these allegations the appellant prayed that the marriage performed between him and the respondent according to Hindu rites at Masudaon 17-6-1978 be dissolved by passing a decree of divorce.
3. The case set up, in her written statement, by the respondent was that it was in accordance with the family custom that after the marriage she stayed in the matrimonial home only for four days and thereafter she returned to her parents house along with her brother and that since the appellant was undergoing training in I.T.I., she stayed with her parents and came to live with the appellant in August, 1978 where she lived only for 15 days and thereafter had gone to her parents’ house and that after returning to the matrimonial home she had to go to her parents’ house in February, 1979 as the appellant had asked her father to take her along with him, as the appellant was to go to Benaras etc. along with his friends and colleagues. She denied the allegation that her behaviour towards the appellant and/or his parents was cruel or she ever used any abusive language for any of them. She also denied the occurrences mentioned in the petition and pleaded that they were concocted ones. She also pleaded that somebody from the appellants family used to go and fetch her from her parents’ house, but after she went there in February, 1979, none from the appellants’ side came to fetch her although her father had approached them for this purpose. By way of additional pleas it was pleaded that the father of the appellant had an evil eye on her and she had complained to the appellant about it and had also suggested to him that he and she should live in a separate house.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:–
^^1- D;k vizkFkhZuh izkFkhZ ds
izfr dwjrk dh nks”kh gS \ tSlk fd izkFkZuk i= ds pj.k la[;k 6 o 7 esa
of.kZr gS A
2- vuqrks”k A**
5. In support of his case the appellant appeared as his own witness as P.W. 1 and examined his friends Sriram and Ugam Lal as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 respectively. In rebuttal, the respondent examined her father as R.W. 2 and appeared as her own witness as R.W. 1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent had treated him with cruelty and as such dismissed his petition. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has approached this Court by filing this appeal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.
7. During the course of his evidence, the appellant admitted that he was not present when the respondent is stated to have abused his parents or when she hit his mother with ‘Bhoonkni’. He deposed that this fact was told to him by his parents and also by a neighbour named Prabhulal Joshi. The appellant did not produce his parents or the abovesaid Mr. Joshi in the witness-box and there is no explanation for their non-production. The case of the appellant that the respondent used to abuse him also does not find support from the evidence produced on record. The two witnesses produced by him as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 do not talk of any such thing in their statements on oath, but on the contrary they have stated that as and when they went to the house of the appellant, they found the respondent’s behaviour to be quite nice. The appellant himself has admitted in the cross-examination that he never complained either to the parents of the respondent or to any one of his own relations that the behavour of the respondent was bad. The respondent while appearing as R. W. 1 has denied the allegation that she used any sbusive language or mis-bahaved with the appellant and her statement has remained unchallenged in cross-examination. No evidence has been produced by the appellant to support the case that the respondent had been creating problems and difficulties affecting his normal routine life. In order to prove his case that in August, 1978 the respondent on being asked to prepare tea for his friends, had walked out by muttering bad words, he has examined his two friends Sriram and Ugam Lal besides making his statement in this regard. According to Sriram, he and Ugam Lal were to go I.T.I. along with the appellant and they waited in a hotel for the appellant and since he did not come there, they had gone to his house and when they reached there, the appellant was taking bath and while taking bath, he had told the respondent to prepare tea, but she threw away the ‘Bhagona’ and stated some words which he could not hear. According to Ugmlay P.W. 3 when they reached his house, the appellant had handed over ‘Bhagona’ to the respondent and had asked her to prepare tea, but she threw the ‘Bhagona’ and stated some words which he could not hear. According to the appellant appearing as P.W. 1 his friends had come by chance and he had asked the respondent to prepare tea for them, but she had thrown away the ‘Bhagona’ and had stated that she was not his servant. According to the appellant his parents were present at that time. As noted above, the parents of the appellant have not been examined by him without any explanation. The case set up in the evidence of the appellant is that the respondent had thrown away the ‘Bhagona’ and had told the appellant that she was not his servant whereas according to the pleadings she had walked away after muttering bad words. According to Sriram, the appellant was taking bath at the relevant time and while taking bath, had told the respondent to prepare tea whereas according to Ugamlal the appellant himself had given her ‘Bhagona’ for preparing tea which she threw away. This occurrence has totally been denied by the respondent in her statement on oath and her statement remained unchallenged in cross-examination. The case of the appellant that the respondent had refused to accompany him to Benaras, is also not supported by any evidence and on the contrary the case set up by the respondent that while going to Benaras he had asked respondent’s father to take her, stands supported by the unchallenged statements of the respondent and her father appearing as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 respectively.
8. In this view of the matter the learned trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent had treated him with cruelty. The findings of the learned trial court on issue No. 1 are, therefore, affirmed.
9. It has next been contended by Shri Bhandari that admittedly the appellant and respondent have been living away from each other since February, 1979 and as such decree for divorce should be passed on this ground itself.
10. This argument has to be rejected on the short ground that no such ground is available under the Act and a court cannot dissolve the marriage between the parties on a ground which is not specified in the Act. If any authority is needed for this purpose, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in case Reynold Rajamani v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1261.
11. No other point has been raised before me.
12. This appeal is without any merit and is dismissed with costs.