PETITION - TRIAL COURT.

Trial Court Petition. (ANNEXURE A-8).
IN THE COURT OF THE VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE TO THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BILASPUR M.P

ARUP KUMAR GUPTA  ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
SMT RAMA DASGUPTA  ...RESPONDENT

Petition under Sec 12(1)(c), 13 (1)(ia) & (ib) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The aforesaid petitioner begs to submit as under:-

Most respectfully showeth that:-

1. The petitioner and respondent got married on 8.5.1988 at Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh M.P. according to custom prevailing in Hindu Baidya Community of Bengal.
2. The parties were last resided together at the quarter allotted to petitioner by his employer, bearing the number B-609, Block-1, Yamuna Vihar, P.O. Jamnipali Distt. Korba M.P.
3. The parties resided together till the end of January. 1955. After arising of serious consequences, the petitioner forced by the respondent to vacate the quarter. Since then, respondent is in forceful possession of the quarter till today; though the said official accommodation is legally belong to the petitioner.
4. No issue was born out of this wedlock.
5. That respondent started her matrimonial life in a fraudulent manner. The marriage was a negotiated one. At the time of marriage negotiation respondent’s brother and sister in law (brother’s wife) wrote a Letter, where they communicate that, the age of the bride (respondent) was 32 years. The letter bearing this information written in Bengali, dated 1.12.87. But, the real date of birth of the respondent is 20.12.1950 as per her office records. Accordingly, as on 1.12.87, her actual age was 36 years 11 months 12 days say about 37 years.
According to Bengali Baidya Custom, a male do not marry a female older than him. As the party, on behalf of respondent gave false information to the petitioner, therefore the consent was obtained by fraud and attracts the provision of Sec. 12(1(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Petitioner kept it secret so far considering respondent’s future, as well as, her well educational background, respectable professions and the social environment, where she and her brother’s family living with an expectation that the matter will amicably be solved in due course. Petitioner is an introvert person of soft nature. Petitioner continuously protested and objected to the respondent for her such fraudulent behavior and showed his unwillingness to continue such a shameful married life, since the fraud was discovered.
The fraud was discovered while respondent came with her office records for the purpose of joining the government school, Jamnipali, where she presently posted. Before marriage, the petitioner and the respondent did not know one other. At the time of marriage negotiation, the petitioner was an innocent person to the respondent and her family. It was expectation, that a person like respondent, who is well educated and in a respectable profession cannot communicated a false information, very particularly where marriage is concerned. If the exact age of the respondent communicated to the petitioner, then the petitioner might not have married the respondent. This was known to the respondent and her family, and for that reason, they communicated such false statement.
This act of fraudulent behavior by the respondent to the petitioner throw him into a mental distress and dissertation, which is a treatment with cruelty, as the petitioner was absolutely innocent at that very particular period.
Therefore, again it attracts the provisions of Sec 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
After discovering the fraud, though both the parties were living together under the same roof, but petitioner felt alone and passes through a very critical position. Neither had he accepted and welcome the newly married respondent nor he is able to create such a position, by which, the people of surroundings, can asses the problem between the parties. Petitioner primarily requested and latter on creates pressure upon the respondent, her brother and sister-in-law for divorce. But they did not bother it, even to listen it. According to his nature, petitioner’s protest was soft but rigid.
The fraudulent behavior not only constitutes the consent obtained by fraud, but also constitutes a treatment of mental cruelty and mental dissertation.
It the respondent withdraw herself from the marriage admitting the fraudulent behavior on her part, which is an absolute truth - then it did not constitute a mental cruelty. But, when the fraudulent behavior was exposed, she forcedly tried to deny it and imposed over the petitioner - an unwanted, undesirable, matrimonial life.
This is a treatment with cruelty by respondent to the petitioner. This cruel treatment of the respondent constitutes mental cruelty and mental dissertation which converts into physical dissertation also at a latter stage.
Photocopy of the letter dated 1.12.87 bearing information about the age of respondent; English translation of Bengali letter dated 1.12.87. & Photocopy of the age proof as per office record of respondent is annexed as Annexure P-1.
6. Whenever petitioner’s parents visited petitioner at Jamipali, the respondent ill-treated them. Each and every time they experienced it.
7. In October, 1993, petitioner’s mother visited Jamnipali. In front of her, respondent told the petitioner Napunsak’ (impotent). She also charged that due to petitioner’s inability. Respondent depriving from being a mother.
It is a treatment with cruelty by respondent to the petitioner and liable for action under Sec 13(1)(ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
8. Petitioner filed a case for divorce in the court of 4th A.D.J., District Court of Bilaspur, bearing no. 19-A/03, dated 9.11.93.
The copy of the petition dated 9.11.93 annexed as Annexure P-2.
The ground was the change of religion by the petitioner from Hinduism to Islam. The Hon’ble High court of Madhya Pradesh rejected the ground on 27.8.96 - against the civil revision no. 1924 of 1995. The date of Judgment order is 27.8.96.
The copy of the judgment order of M.P. High Court, dated 27.8.1996, annexed as Annexure P-3.
9. After exposing the fraudulent behavior of respondent she started treating the petitioner with cruelty. After the divorce petition filed, respondent done a series of treatment with cruelty to the petitioner. All these were duly reported before the Court of IV A.D.J. of the District Court of Bilaspur, during the proceeding of the case no. 19-A/93. These are as below:
A. In January /Feb 1994, respondent taken away all Indira Vikas Patras and other valuable securities - which was hard earned income of the petitioner and gold ornaments given by the parents and relatives of the petitioner. Petitioner prayed for its return by application dated 30.6.94 and 5.12.94.
This act and conduct of respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty.
B. Petitioner felt that it is impossible to live with respondent due to her treatment with cruelty. Respondent threatened the petitioner of severe consequences until and unless he withdraws the divorce petition.
Respondent harassed, tortured and tried to blackmail the petitioner. She also took the help of communal elements. Therefore, petitioner prayed before the court that –
the respondent be directed to live separately in the interest of justice, vide his application dated 5.12.94.
The application dated 5.12.94 annexed as Annexed P-4.
C. Petitioner’s brother-in-law, Mr. Anupom Kumar Dasgupta, threatened the petitioner on 28.11.94. It is reported to P.S. Darri, Korba. Photocopy of the application dated 28.12.94 annexed as annexure P-5.
D. On the early morning of 24.1.95, respondent burnt herself by fire. Petitioner reported the matter to the P.S Darri, Distt Korba Vide letter dated 24.1.95 for enquiry. Petitioner felt it - as a conspiracy against him, and strong insecurity - to live with respondent under the same roof. He compelled to leave the residence in a single wear i.e. in one pant and one shirt, which he wearied at that time.
Some time later, petitioner want to his residence to collect some clothes and other essential household items. But the respondent did not allow it. As a result of that, petitioner compelled to leave the residence permanently. Since then, petitioner staying out - from his own residence i.e. the quarter (bearing No. B-609, Block-1, Yamuna Vihar, Jamnipali, Distt Korba) situated in the township of N.T.P.C/ K.S.T.P.S., which is allotted to the petitioner by his employer, as per the service terms, and for which- petitioner paying rent toll today.
After ejecting from his own residence, petitioner requested several times to his employer - in writing to get the residence vacated from the unauthorized occupation of respondent But no reply yet been received.
Petitioner request respondent to vacate the residence but she did not listen.
Respondent burnt herself and tried to blackmail the petitioner. In his application dated 5.12.94 (Annex P-4) petitioner expressed his anxiety that the petitioner may put into trouble due to the reckless act of the respondent who turned hostile and may commit any offence at anytime.
Even in the investigation report of the police official; dated 30.1.95, this fact reflected. It is also come out from the same report, that, the respondent unwilling to give any household items - even the clothes of the petitioner, to him.
All the above acts and conducts of respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty.
All these ‘treatment with cruelty’ simultaneously a cause of ‘desertation’ by respondent to the petitioner.
The photocopy to the request for investigation dated 24.1.95 annexed as annexure P-6. The photocopy of the report, after investigation, dated 30.1.95 annexed as annexure P-7.
The photocopy of the application and affidavit, in support of annexure P-6 and P-7 are annexed as annexure P-8.
10. Respondent created such an atmosphere - inside and outside the residence, and polluted the social environment in such a manner, that the petitioner compelled to leave his own residence, better to say ejected from his own residence on January, 1995.
Mental desertation took place after exposing the fraud of respondent. All the above treatment with cruelty of respondent throw petitioner – into a total and complete desertation since January, 1995.
This is liable for action under Sec. 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
11. Respondent’s written statement dated 6.11.1995, which submitted in the case no. 19-A/93 runs thus:-
(A) Point no 6:
Quote   The behavior of the petitioner to respondent was inhumane and cruel at all times, for which, no issue was born by petitioner to respondent.   Unquote
(B) Point no 8:
Quote    After marriage, petitioner’s behavior with respondent was cruel and inhumane.  Unquote
(C) point no 13:
Quote    By a continuous cruel behavior upon respondent, petitioner demanded her shtridhan; self earned income, and landed property and petitioner continuously threatened and tortured respondent financially mentally & physically. Unquote
(D) Point no 14:
Quote    Petitioner took an ugly attempt and tried to destroy the social and family image of respondent.   Unquote.
Photocopy of the written statement dated 6.11.1995 annexed as annexure P-9.
12. From the point no. 6 of the written statement, it is clear that respondent strongly believe and advocated that the petitioner is impotent and the cause of her issuelessness.
Respondent expressed the similar communication to her mother-in-law on November, 1993.
It is another matter that whether a person is impotent or not in reality, but throwing such type of communication orally to petitioner’s mother in front of petitioner and charging the
same in her written statement is completely another thing.
It is an intentional treatment with cruelty by respondent to the petitioner and liable for action under section 13(1) (ia) under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995.
13. In various, stages different places and written statement, the respondent abused and condemned petitioner’s religion i.e. Islam.
In her written statement (Annex. P-9) respondent wrote that, petitioner changed his religion, with an intention to defame and destroy the good social and family images of respondent.
Respondent wrote several letters to her mother-in-law that people abusing and condemning petitioner as he embraces Islam. But petitioner found it untrue.
It is known to the respondent that the petitioner changed his religion from Hinduism to Islamic faith.
She might not have enough respect to the Islam. But, she could maintain some short of decency, a little respect to petitioner’s religion, for the sake of petitioner.
But instead of that, respondent charged in her written statement that the petitioner Changed his religion to destroy and defame the good images of respondent and her family.
Respondent did not show proper respect to the religion of the petitioner.
She showed her disrespect to the petitioner’s religion. This treatment of respondent to the petitioner is a treatment with mental cruelty of serious nature and liable for action under Sec. 13(1(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995.
14. Respondent believe that – the petitioner is impotent and – by changing his religion he tried an ugly attempt to defame and destroy the good reputation of respondent and her family; and –the petitioner treated respondent with cruelty.
15. She complained it several times in different places and occasions and even in her written statement also. She could easily pray for divorce, or judicial separation, or restitution of conjugal rights, on her own grounds, as the matter canalized under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
But respondent neither praying for divorce on her own grounds, nor she co-operated with the petitioner to obtain divorce, nor she kept a room for re-union. The intention is very clear. Respondent aiming to encroach the person of the petitioner.
It is an act, equal to the denial of the personal liberty of the petitioner under art.21 of The Constitution of India. It is an attempt to deprive the petitioner from Human rights also. This is a treatment with cruelty intentionally done by respondent to the petitioner of severe nature and liable for action under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
16. Petitioner is an asthmatic patient. While he was living together with respondent he frequently fell into asthmatic trouble. Before marriage petitioner was not so ill and after leaving company of the respondent, petitioner feels quite healthy in this respect. Respondent’s treatment with cruelty, throw petitioner into constant mental strain, i.e. worries, anxieties and mental pressure over the petitioner. As a result petitioner attacked by Asthma so frequently.
17. On 12.10.99, petitioner’s employer Mr.A.K. Pashine, Senior Manager (EDP) on behalf of petitioner’s employer ask clarification serving an explanation call against petitioner vide letter ref. KS EDP:99/487, dated 12.10.1999 along with another two letters as enclosures, written by respondent’s brother Mr. A.K. Dasgupta, dated 5.2.99 and by respondent dated 20.9.99.
Photocopy of the letter of petitioner’s employer, dated 12.10.99 annexed as annexure P-10.
Photocopy of the letter of Mr. A.K. Dasgupta respondent’s brother dated 5.2.99 annexed as annexure P-11.
Photocopy of the letter of respondent dated 20.9.99, annexed as annexure P-12.
18. On behalf of respondent the brother of respondent lodged some false complaints ( Anx P-11) to the petitioner’s employer addressing to the G.M., K.S.T.P.S./N.T.P.C. Distt Korba and copy to
(i) The Home Minister, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
(ii) Minister – Incharge District of Korba, for information and necessary action.
These are quoted below:-
(A) Quote The petitioner not only continuously cheating/torture but also demand money for the sake of conversion to Islam. Unquote
(B) Quote Though Shri Arup Kumar Gupta is married still then he married Smt.Sunita Halder, wife of S.K.Roy. Unquote
(C) Quote Smt. Halder is Government Employee and wife of another person. Unquote
The reply of the petitioner is as below:-
The first complaint is false, petitioner never does any thing like cheating or torture to respondent petitioner already converted into Islamic faith. No money is required for accepting Islam. Question of belief only is there. This complaint bears no clear intelligible meaning also.
The second and third complaints are also false. Neither petitioner married Smt. Halder, nor Smt. Halder is wife of another person.
Brother of respondent demanded the following:-
(D) Quote   This activity of Shri Arup Kumar Gupta [e.no.- 25268] is illegal, illegal & criminal; therefore I demand an appropriate penal action, against him from you.   Unquote
(E)  Quote   Please let me know the appropriate action taken by you against Shri Arup Kumar Gupta.   Unquote
(F).  Quote   Please keep it mind, that, if you do not take appropriate penal action against such character less employee Arup Kumar and due to your negligence, if my younger sister compiled to take any serious steps or take steps to commit suicide, or if she would be the victim of any physical assaults, by the gonads of Arup Kumar, then the total responsibilities will be yours   Unquote
The demands are vague and the complaints are false. Petitioner never does any illegal or penal offence for which respondent is eligible to complaint.
Respondent’s brother lodged these false complaints and vague demands with a threatening of committing suicide by respondent indirectly.
The purpose of such indirect threatening of committing suicide is to create undue pressure over the petitioner’s employer. The intention is to compel petitioner’s employer, to take action against petitioner, by which petitioner loose his service, on the basis of respondent false baseless charges, this is an intentional treatment to lowering down petitioner in the estimation of his employer and an attempt to snatch the job of petitioner by hook or crock. This is a treatment with mental cruelty by respondent to petitioner and liable for action under section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
19. Respondent wrote a letter (Annex P-12) dated 20.9.99 complaining a series of false complaints address to:-
(i) Smt Bose, President, Maitri Mahila Smaiti, N.T.P.C Jamnipali.
Maitri Mahila Samiti is a ladies club of N.T.P.C. employees and receive financial aid from the fund of M/S Korba Super Thermal Power Station, and copy to  (ii) General Manager
(iii)Head of personnel deptt; of M/s Korba Super Thermal Power Station - The employer of the petitioner and copy to:-
(ii) Chairman-cum-Managing Director
(iii) Director (personnel)
of M/s National Thermal Power Corporation, New Delhi, which is the corporate centre and head office of M/S korba Super Thermal Power Station.
20. By making false complaints and an indirect threatening of committing suicide by respondent She compel petitioner’s employer to initiate an explanation call against petitioner.
21. The complains and demands lodged by respondent vide her letter (Annex. P-12) are given below.
Complaints: Quote
(A) After marriage, the behaviors of my husband to me were financial & physical exploitation.
(B) He never brought his salary or any other items got from N.T.P.C. to home, and where he spent all these items, are not known to me.
(C) If I ask he behaved unpleasantly.
(D) On the contrary he spent my money for domestic purposes.
(E) He kept an woman health worker, Sunita Haldar as wife at Bankimongra.
(F) According to my husband, as he says, he has an illegal issue.
(G) Smt.Sunita Haldar is wife of another person.
(H) A case was registered by Korba police under sec 394 of I.P.C. and he is under trial.
(I) My husband tried to obtain divorce by a drama of conversion to Islam.
(J) Items, gifts & LTC facilitates offered by the NTPC management to my husband Arup Kumar Gupta, never reached to home. I do not know where he spent all these things.
(K) He draw big amounts of loan without my knowledge and misused it.
(L) He took house building advance but not building the house.
Unquote.
Demands:- Quote
(M) These acts of my husband are liable for serious action against him by NTPC management. He should be penalized for such acts.
(N) Therefore, NTPC management should take penal action against my husband’s such illegal acts, which is not yet done. These are grave and an evidence of insensitivity to woman torture.
(O) Therefore, I request that he should not be sanctioned any type of loan without my consent and knowledge.
(P) Whatever the items, he entitled, from the NTPC management, may please given to me, instead of him.
(Q) I demand action against such conduct of Shri Arup Kumar Gupta.
Unquote
22. The reply of the petitioner are as below:-
(A) Totally a false complaint. As a matter of fact, respondent started her matrimonial life with frauding, while it was exposed to the petitioner, the relationship between petitioner and respondent detoriated and respondent started treatment with cruelty to the petitioner with intention to encroach the person of the petitioner and compel him to carry the undesired matrimonial life. She exploited petitioner mentally, physically and financially so long petitioner were attached with her.
(B) Firstly, it is not a compulsion, to bring the materials to home or handover it to wife. Secondly, respondent enjoyed all facilities and materials so long petitioner was attached with her. Thirdly, it is one’s personal liberty, to decide where he will spend his earnings. Here, it is to be noted that the respondent never gave single paisa from her own earnings to petitioner up till they were living together.
(C) It is wrong interpretation. As a matter of fact, respondent trying to enter into a zone, where she not allowed to move.
(D) Totally a false statement, respondent’s mode of talking creates an impression that petitioner living with respondent till now. But petitioner compelled to leave his own quarter since January, 1995, due to the treatment with cruelty by respondent to petitioner.
(E) Smt. Halder is not wife of petitioner. She is girl friend of the petitioner.
(F) Petitioner has no illegal child. He has a female baby who is the blessings of almighty to the petitioner.
(G) She was.
(H) Petitioner not aware of any such case. Once two police officials met petitioner and took statement of him. They told that, they enquiry against the complain of respondent and they have court’s order. Petitioner wants to see the document (paper). But they did not show it. The matter is a “got up case” fabricated by respondent In one side, respondent herself is the complainer of false allegations to the police and in another side shall gave a statement to N.T.P.C., management that police registered a case against petitioner.
(I) It is true that, petitioner converted herself into Islamic faith. It is also true that, petitioner appeal for divorce. But these were not a drama. It is shameful and sorrowful that respondent hate the petitioner’s religion i.e. Islam.
(J) Whatever petitioner gets from the employment of K.S.T.P.S. is the earnings and personal property of petitioner. Petitioner never claims the property or salary of the respondent.
(K) No need to inform the respondent about the status of petitioner, considering the relation presently exists between the parties.
(L) Totally a false statement.
Answer of petitioner regarding the demand of respondent is as below:
(M) As the statements are false, so the claims are illegal.
(N) N.T.P.C., management can not take any action against false charges. Here it is to be specifically noted that respondent started her matrimonial life, with fraud and continue it by a series of treatment with cruelty. Her compliment over NTPC management for insensitivity to woman torture is itself a question mark over her past treatment to petitioner.
(O) Respondent trying to handle employer’s discretionary power regarding sanction of loan to the petitioner by blackmailing the employer with indirect threat to commit suicide.
(P) It is also discretionary power of management.
(Q) N.T.P.C. management can not take any action against petitioner on the basis of false complaints lodged by his fraud and cruel wife.
23. The letter of the respondent (Annex. P-12), which addressed to the President, Maitri Mahila Samiti is also in question. Being an educated (respondent is M.A., B.Ed) and responsible person (respondent is teacher by profession) know well that Maitri Mahila Samiti is a ladies club and none of the complaints and claims can be attended or fulfilled by this club. Instead of appealing appropriate authority, respondent address to the club. By addressing president of the club, respondent addresses all members of the club, who are general public in this regard. Thus addressing a general public, respondent submitted the false charges and vague claims before them with full awareness that they have nothing to do with these matters. It is crystal clear that, respondent keeps an enmity with petitioner. She wrote this letter, addressed to general public of N.T.P.C. family, with an intention to insult and lowering down the image of the petitioner among the general public of N.T.P.C. family. This created a deep hurt with mental pain over the mind of petitioner. This is an intentional mental cruelty by respondent to petitioner and liable for action under sec. 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
24. Respondent sent the copy of the letter annex. P-12 to the employer of petitioner and several other superior authorities. They are:-
(i) General, Manager;
(ii) Head of personnel deptt. Of M/S K.S.T.P.S of Korba, M.P. a project under M/s National Thermal Power corporation, New Delhi.
And
(i) CMD (iv) Director (Personnel); of M/s National Thermal Power Corporation, New Delhi.
All these complain are false. Some of these complaints are of very serious nature, These are:-
(i) Korba police lodged a case against petitioner under I.P.C.
(ii) Petitioner withdraw House building loan but not made any house.
If any of these complaints be true, then petitioner will loose his job. Respondent lodged these false complaints to the employer of petitioner with full awareness that these complaints are false, scandalous malicious, baseless and disproved. Still then respondent spread all these complaints along with some other complaints, to defame the petitioner.
Respondent doing this propagandas in a geoblic style with believe in goeablic philosophy that, if a lie speaks hundred times from several corners then it will be believed as a true.
The intention is, to humiliate the petitioner; to bring down the employee petitioner in the estimation of his employer, to ruin, to destroy the career and promotional opportunities of the petitioner and if respondent’s luck favor, then bring down petitioner in a jobless position.
This letter put petitioner into a great mental agony. Because, if respondent gets succeed by her goeablic propaganda, then some of the people started to believing that - when such type of complaints coming several times from several comers then, some of the complaints might be true. Though all the complaints are false and unproven.
The unjustifiable remarks and demands of respondent to petitioner’s superior will potentially damage the career of petitioner by lowering down him to the eyes of his superiors and several other authorities.
Respondent not only wrote these false and scandalous allegations to the employer of the petitioner. She wrote the same to several authorities like CMD & Dir. (Personnel) of M/s N.T.P.C., Respondent’s false defamatory, scandalous malicious and unproved allegation to employer and several other authorities, defame the petitioner lowering down the petitioner, in their estimation and ruin the future scope in service. These false charges put petitioner into a great mental agony. Respondent is causing mental torture by filing false complaints against petitioner.
All these complaints forwarded with a indirect threatening of committing suicide by respondent and keeping the employer of petitioner liable for it, vide her brother’s letter, Annex. P-11. Petitioner prayed for the pointed attention of the learned court, to this paragraph of Annex. P-11.
Getting blackmailed by this letter the employer of petitioner initiated an explanation call (Annex. P-10) against petitioner.
Employer of petitioner used to ask for explanation on these false complaints, causing mental agony and fear of getting unwanted remarks by higher official of the management, who appears to be more sympathetic (biased) to respondent.
This act and conduct of respondent is a treatment with cruelty of very serious nature and liable for action under Sec. 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
25. Respondent wrote in her letter that “according to petitioner, he has an illegal child”. The nature of coupling or the birth of a child within or without wedlock does not bear the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child. Where binding between a couple is in question - it may be legitimate or illegitimate. But the birth of a child - can not be, and should not be stamped as legitimate or illegitimate one, because of its parent’s nature of coupling. Neither the nature nor the Almighty marked a child as legitimate or illegitimate one. Above all, the child is not at all responsible for its own birth. Therefore, petitioner feels that, due to the nature of coupling of the parents nobody has the right to express it in this manner i.e. by raising the question of legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child. It is against the basic human values also. Every child of India today, is the citizen of India, tomorrow. They are having equal rights. There is no justification to lowering down to a particular child due to the parent’s nature of coupling. This may be the cause of growing ‘inferiority complex” among the “tender infant mind” and a “social and psychological barrier” to its natural development of the child. The child may be deprived from “equal treatment”, from her various spheres of movement in schools, colleges among the friend circles and their parents.
Spreading and campaigning in favor of such attitude in various levels, where her parents move, may be the cause of dangerous harm to the infant baby. It is alarming also, for taking a right decision, to set the whole thing in a right manner, within the limited available scope.
The respondent understands well that the petitioner loves his infant female baby. She is the only issue of him and it is his softest corner also. Still then, she hits the girl child by raising the point of legitimacy with an intention to hit the parents of the child. It is an intentional hitting, which hurts the tender feeling of the petitioner, as well as a cause of great harm to the infant baby of the petitioner.
While the respondent trying to get the sympathy and shelter under the popular slogan of “woman torture”’ simultaneously, she herself is active, to snatch the butter and bread of another woman- who is the mother of a female infant baby, and the service of the father, of that female child The intention is to destroy the mother and her female infant baby.
It is a worst type of mental cruelty of shrude and crude nature by respondent to petitioner. This act and conduct of the respondent is liable for action under Sect. 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
26. Once upon a time, petitioner had matrimonial relationship with respondent. In one hand respondent has no conjugal relationship with petitioner- since 9.11.93 and onwards, on the other hand respondent never pray for restitution of conjugal rights, under Sec 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which means respondent neither aggrieved nor interested to restitute the conjugal rights and relationship.
On the contrary, respondent act and conduct to the petitioner is a series of treatment with cruelty, which already stated above.
Matrimonial relationship based on mutual love, affection, respect, well understanding and some common goals, where, these are not available in a particular relationship, and then it is not a matrimonial relationship. Then it reaches into existence in paper only. It is not a desirable situation. If it is not consummate in it’s proper form then it is better, as well as healthier to bring to a good end.
Under such circumstances, it is much more logical; to conclude that, the respondent is also interested for dissolution of marriage as there is no room for re-union. Therefore, matrimonial tie between the petitioner and the respondent may dissolve, taking into granted that, the respondent also not willing to continue the marriage and consented for the dissolution of marriage in the light of the provision of divorce by mutual consent under sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
27. Petitioner driven away by respondent from his official residence of N.T.P.C. Township and loosing a lot of money every month, and due to that petitioner passing through a very hand inconvenient life. Respondent’s act and conduct purely responsible for it. Respondent is well aware about the hardship and inconvenience of petitioner. She is well aware that the quarter is allotted to petitioner as per his service terms and he is bearing the rent till today. Till then she occupied and captured the N.T.P.C. provided residence of petitioner. It is very clear from this particular point that “who is tortured by whom. Respondent’s intention is to exploit the petitioner in the name of marriage. Therefore such marriage should be dissolved to protect the interest of the petitioner, who is legal occupant of the quarter and unable to live there due to the presence of respondent and her brother’s family. It can not be allowed to respondent to eat the interest of the petitioner.
This act and conduct of respondent is a treatment with cruelty by respondent to petitioner of a serious nature and liable for action under Sec. 13(1) (ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1995.
28. Deleted by order of Trial court.
29. While the fraud of respondent was exposed and she was requested to leave petitioner in a gentle manner, since then the respondent’s intention was to destroy the petitioner. To grab petitioner’s money and other properties in the name of marriage.
(i) Respondent abused petitioner in front of his mother by false allegations of impotency.
(ii) Snatch IVP & other valuable securities.
(iii) Make a drama by burning herself.
(iv) Capture petitioner’s residence and ejecting petitioner out from his office accommodation.
(v) Throw petitioner into desertation.
(vi) Disrespect petitioner’s religion Islam.
(vii) Tried to encroach the personal liberty.
(viii) Made false defamatory complaints without any proof.
(ix) Conspired to ‘damage the carrier and make petitioner Jobless’ by this false defamatory allegation without proof.
(x) Throw these false defamatory complains to superior officials where petitioner has no reach.
(xi) Made false defamatory allegations to general public without proof.
(xii) Hited the girl child of petitioner publicly.
Respondent’s mental torture and cruelty detoriated the matrimonial relationship day by day. It is impossible for petitioner to live together without mental agony, torture and distress. This atmosphere created by, respondent and her family, in a slow poisoning manner. Now it is so worst that no reasonable person can live together with her,
Petitioner feels suffocation there. There is no question of further improvement of it. Under such atmosphere, forcible maintenance of marital relationship, only destroy the mental peace and financial loss to the petitioner. It will be a liberty to respondent to eat, the interest of petitioner and his girl child,- if such matrimonial relationship allows to continue.
Forcible maintenance of such peculiar marital relationship is tyranny and matrimonial home can not be founded of grounded on force. Forcible maintenance of marital relationship is slavery by one party to the other.
A person marries to have a sympathetic and understanding co-partner, with whom joys and sorrows of the life can be shared. The sheet anchored of a matrimonial home is their love, amity, sympathy and understanding and not any marriage ritual or certificate. No spouse would ever withdraw from the society of the other unless those are lost and once those are lost, the so called matrimonial home becomes a
mere hollow façade and living together becomes and “impossible”.
The (i) ill treatment and (ii) resultant apprehension of danger by the act and conduct of respondent can not be counted as a small or negligible thing.
All those matters came to such a pitch of persistence and intensity, that the maintenance of matrimonial relationship is no longer possible. The above act and conduct is such type that petitioner can not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. All the acts and conducts tends to destroy the legitimate end and objects of matrimony. It attacks the sense of personal safety, and mental happiness and reputation also. Petitioner is in service. It is his business and profession it requires good reputation to upraise the carrier. Respondent has enmity with petitioner. Her intention is to defame and destroy petitioner’s goodwill, and reputation. With that intention, she wrote to petitioner’s employer, superiors and general public, the false allegations and claims illegal demands. If respondent is really in needs of some remedial measure, she could come to court with her petition, instead of that, she move in such an area where certainly she can not get any remedial measure, but is able to bring down the petitioner in the estimation of his employer, which effects adversely on the carrier and promotional opportunities. The intention is crystal clear. The intention is not to get any matrimonial remedy or relief but lowering downs the petitioner in dignity.
By making false complains, unjustified demands and ugly remarks to the superiors of employee petitioner and to general public, respondent damaged not only the professional carrier but also defame and destroy the image, the social status of petitioner, which amounts to a treatment with cruelty by respondent to petitioner beyond any doubt and liable for penal action under Sec 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.
30. Respondent deserted petitioner more than five years and no restitution of conjugal rights has taken place during this period. Decree of divorce may please be granted on this ground.
31. That the petitioner is not made in collusion with the respondent.
32. Regarding age fraud by respondent, this ground was not taken previously and kept secret so far, considering respondent’s future, her social and professional status etc., but when respondent did not care the tender feelings of petitioner regarding her girl child, and aim the child with an intention to hit the petitioner, then petitioner compel to break the silence regarding the age frauding by respondent.
Regarding the ground abuse the petitioner by the word “Napunsak”. Petitioner felt shame to disclose it previously.
All other grounds of cruelty and desertation informed time to time, during the case 19-a/93 was pending. Regarding the grounds - false complaints made by respondent and her brother – the photocopy of the letter received only on 12.10.99. Considering the above points, delay may kindly be excused and grant relief by decree of divorce.
33. The petitioner and respondent were last resided together at the accommodation allotted to the petitioner at Jamnipali township of M/S K.S.T.P.S. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, Distt. Korba M.P. within the jurisdiction of this court.
34. Prescribed court fee affixed with the petition.
35. It is prayed that, a decree for divorce be passed considering the above mentioned grounds, in the interest of justice.
Sd/-
(Petitioner)
Dated 24.1.2000
Bilaspur, M.P.