PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICE G.C. Mital
CHAIN SINGH On 25 October 1983
The parties were married on 12.12.1979. A son was born on 7.11.1980. At the time of marriage, the wife was employed as a teacher, whereas the husband was still under training for being appointed as Physical Instructor. The wife is M.A., B. Ed., and is at present working as Second Headmistress, whereas the husband is M.A., D.P.I., N.S. and is working as Director in Physical Education. After sometime, the husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty, but the petition was dismissed on 12.9.1981. On 8.3.1982, the present petition for divorce was filed on the fresh ground of cruelty which came into being after the decision of the earlier divorce petition. The details of the cruelty alleged were that in the statement made by the wife in previous divorce petition, she had made false statement on oath that the husband was carrying on with his brother’s wife. However, the major ground of cruelty was that she had written two letters which were later on exhibited as A1 and A2 wherein she had stated that he was ‘rascal’ and that his mother, sister and his brother’s wife had given birth to bastards. The Roman script of the words is as follows :—
“Tohade nalon wade wade badmash main nak nall lakiran kadh-de dekhe han. Pehlan meri sas ne haram de jammi hun meri darani ne haram da jamia meri nanan vi dhariwal haram da ee jamm dee firdi hai.”
These words caused mental cruelty to him giving a ground for divorce and thus, he came to the Court. The wife contested the petition. The following issues were framed :—
1. Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent, if so, to what effect ?
2. Whether the present application is maintainable ?
After evidence was led, the Court below, by a well considered judgment and decree dated 11.10.1982, allowed the divorce petition and granted divorce after recording a finding that letter Ex. A1 caused mental cruelty to the husband. This is wife’s appeal.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in the decision of the Court below.
I talked to both the parties and tried if there was a chance of reconciliation. The husband point blank refused to keep the appellant and he went to the extent of saying that come what may, he cannot stand the appellant, a woman of such a stringent tongue, acts and manners and that he would, rather, commit suicide. On talking to the wife, I found that the husband was right that she has a pungent tongue and cannot be believed as she is prepared to make any false statement and disown her own writings. From reading of her statement made in Court below, I found that she disowned several writings put to her, including letters Ex. A1 and A2. To test whether she was telling the truth or not, I put to her, her own written statement and asked if the signatures thereunder, as also under the verification, were her’s or not. She denied her signatures. The trial Court had taken her handwriting on a piece of paper, as also her signatures by way of specimen writing and signatures to tally with letters Ex. A1 and A2, and some more documents produced on the record. When those specimen handwriting and signatures were put to her, she denied the writing, as also the signatures. But when she was made to read the note underneath to the effect that her specimen signatures and handwriting were taken in Court for the purpose of comparison with other documents on record, she said ‘yes,’ it was her handwriting contained her signatures. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I found that the Court below was perfectly justified in comparing the handwriting of letters A1 and A2 with the specimen handwriting obtained in Court. The Court was also right in comparing the specimen handwriting with her handwriting contained in applications Ex. CW1/A and CW1/C, which were given by the wife for the transfer and for adjustment in higher category on account of her improved qualifications. Even these writings were denied by her. I have also compared the handwriting of Ex. CW1/A, CW1/C, A1 and A2 with the specimen handwriting and found that they are of one and the same person and that she made a false statement in Court, denying that they were signed by her and were in her hand.
Adverting to the contents of letter Ex. A1, I hold that the aforequoted words could reasonably cause mental cruelty to the husband, as false allegations of serious nature were levelled against his mother, sister and brother’s wife. The wife has wholly failed to show on record, as to what could reasonably prompt her to write such a letter to her husband. Even before me, it is not her case that her statement was truthful. Therefore, levelling of such false allegations could reasonably cause mental torture to her husband giving a justifiable ground to seek divorce. Hence, the Court below was perfectly justified in granting divorce on the aforesaid basis.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is devoid of all merit and is dismissed with costs.