D.P. Singh, J.@mdashHeard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Anoop Trivedi, for the respondent.
2. This appeal arises out of proceedings u/s 13(1)(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby marriage between the parties has been dissolved through a decree of divorce.
3. The appellant, Smt. Sandhya Singh and her husband Major Sandeep Singh, both belong to Army families. Appellant is the daughter of retired Lt. Col. Vijai Singh, while respondent husband is the son of retired Lt. Col. Ranvir Singh, V.S.M. An arranged marriage between the parties was duly solemnized according to Hindu rites at the Tal Katora, Garden in New Delhi on 2nd April, 1995 when the husband, who then held the rank of a Captain, was posted as instructor at the Indian Military Academy at Dehradun. In October, 1995, the husband was sent for a course at Ahmadnagar and thereafter to Poone in January, 1996. In October, 1996 he joined his 66 Armoured Regiment at Babina in U.P., where he was promoted as Major. He moved to Jaisalmer alongwith his Regiment in 1997 where the husband filed the petition u/s 13(1)(A) of the Act on 16.10.1998, at the Family Court, Jaipur while posted at Jaisalmer.
4. The divorce petition, at the instance of the wife, was transferred to the District Courts at Aligarh in U.P., her home town.
5. It is alleged in the petition, giving specific instances that the behaviour and conduct of the appellant was causing immense emotional stress, mental agony and there was hardly any sharing of the bed. It is stated that the appellant took no interest in her married life and deprived the husband of pleasures of matrimony. It is also categorically stated that the appellant always doubted his character and made it public and would humiliate him even in. front of others by making unfounded allegations, apart from ill-treating his family members and belittling his prestige generally in the society at large, and in the service circle in particular, which was telling upon his career. It is also stated that she blackmailed him by threatening and attempting suicide.
6. She entered her appearance and filed her written statement denying the allegations and alleging that right from the date of the marriage the appellant and her family members were dissatisfied with the amount of dowry given by her parents and since further demands could not be met, she was turned out of the house and he is seeking divorce only to remarry for higher dowry.
7. The trial court framed the following four issues:
8. The husband examined himself as P.W. 1 alongwith his father as P.W. 2, the Commanding Officer of his Regiment, Col. D. P. Mamgain as P.W. 3, another senior officer Col. Ajab Sekhawat as P.W. 4 and a lady wife Smt. Chetna as P.W. 5.
9. The appellant wife in support of her case examined six witnesses, herself and her father as D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 respectively. Her younger brother Rajesh Kumar as D.W. 3, Lt. Col. Y. P. Singh, husband of her elder sister, as D.W. 4, Smt. Rani, a family friend as D.W. 5 and Col. Bahadur, colleague of her father, as D.W. 6.
10. During the pendency of these proceedings, criminal case under Sections 323, 498A and 406, I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were initiated on behalf of the wife and her father on 21.12.1999 against the husband, his parents, sister, brother and sister-in-law where non-bailable warrants were issued and proceedings u/s 82, Cr. P.C. were also taken. Subsequently, final report was filed in favour of several of the accused persons.
11. The trial court atleast on twenty one occasions made efforts for conciliation but it failed. Thus, it considered the material on record and after examining the evidence led on behalf of the parties found that the wife was guilty of mental cruelty and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, granted the divorce vide its judgment dated 19.8.2006.
12. The record of this appeal also reveals that at least two other single Judges of this Court made efforts for reconciliation but to no avail. When this matter was assigned to this Bench, the Court summoned the appellant and explored the possibility of re-approachment and after speaking to her, it also summoned the respondent husband and the matter was taken up again in chambers but the efforts of this Court bore no fruit and the Court found that there is acute lack of trust between the parties. Having no other option it heard the matter on merits.
13. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to understand and comprehend the concept of mental cruelty.
14. The term ''mental cruelty'' has not been defined under the Act, rather it cannot be defined and depends on various parameters in a given fact situation. It would not only be appropriate but necessary to review the married life of the parties in all its aspects. The several acts should be considered cumulatively and only then the question should be asked whether it is reasonably impossible to condone the acts. The conduct should be unprovoked and constitute a course of humiliatary treatment that actually affects the mental health of the spouse which may make life miserable. But, mere distasteful or irritating conduct, displeasure, anger, etc., may not be cruelty itself, unless it results in excessive suffering which may cause severe pain to a reasonable person. The bond of marriage has necessarily to undergo normal wear and tear and some stray instance of discord would normally have to be ignored except where it forms a regular behaviour. Courts have spent considerable time and have made tremendous efforts in various cases to pick through the human mind to adjudge whether the conduct of the spouse falls within the term "mental cruelty". Human mind, intricate as it is, is incapable of precise comprehension. But it is always useful to fall back on decided cases for guidance.
15. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
10. The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such 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. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to "� probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes.
16. It went on to find that in a case of mental cruelty, there would be difficulties in reaching to an arithmetical answer. Thus, it said, the enquiry has to be in regard to the nature of the alleged cruel treatment, impact in the mind of spouse and inference has to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct, keeping in mind the background of the families of the spouses, their personal social and financial status in the society, their education, customs and tradition. Only when the conscience of the Court is satisfied that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony torture or distress, it would be better for both the spouse to snap the relationship to enable them to live a new and different life. However, it sounded a note of caution in paragraph 14:
14. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other''s fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in '' every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hypersensitive approach would be counterproductive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with a particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to matrimonial court.
17. The ratio of the aforesaid case was further relied upon by another two Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
33. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions, their culture and human values to which they attach importance. Judges by the standard of modern civilization in the background of the culture heritage and traditions of our society, a young and well educated woman like the appellant herein is not expected to endure the harassment in domestic life whether mental, physical, intentional or unintentional. Her sentiments have to be respected, her ambition and aspiration taken into account in making adjustment and her basic needs provided, though grievances arising from the temperamental disharmony are irrelevant. This view was taken by the Kerala High Court in Rajani v. Subramonian.
18. Here also, the Court went on to strike a word of caution in the following words:
45. Spouses owe rights and duties each to the other and in their relationship they must act reasonably. In every case where cruelty exists it is possible to say that the spouse at fault has been unreasonable. The list of cruelty, therefore, should be breach of the duty to act reasonably, whether in omission or commission, causing injury to health. Such a list avoids imputing an intention where in fact none may exist. Further all such matters are foresight, desires, wishes, intention, motives, perception, obtuseness, persistence and indifference would remain relevant but merely as a matter of evidence bearing upon the requirement to act reasonably or as aggravation of the matters charged.
19. Recently another three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration or complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty ;
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party ;
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable ;
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration is one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty ;
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse ;
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse, actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty ;
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty ;
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealously, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty ;
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty ;
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty ;
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical � reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty ;
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty ;
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty; and
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
20. Having assimilated the ratio decidendi and illustrations handed down by the highest Court of this land, it would now be appropriate to examine the allegations, defence and counter allegations, the evidences led and then to infer whether a case of mental cruelty has in fact been made out.
21. Generally, the allegations are that from the first night the appellant refused cohabitation saying she despised married life and had married only to please her parents and in fact she wanted to be a Nun. This conduct continued when they reached Babeena to his Regiment where according to the tradition they were lodged in the Guest House. Overlooking it, he went according to the plan for his honeymoon trip to Kodai Kanal, Bombay and Goa and in spite of pleadings she continued to deprive him and it turned out to be a condolence trip. On return to Dehradun he had to throw a customary party for his colleagues on 27th April, 1995 where his parents also came but by her behaviour they believed that something was amiss and had to return. But when his mother again visited Dehradun after ten days, she neither welcomed her and whenever she (mother) sought to start a conversation she was rebuked and she had to leave insulted. Though after some time she did allow cohabitation but made him feel a beggar. Several instances have been cited to show her obnoxious behaviour and indifference to her matrimonial obligations. The Court is firstly dealing with those instances where effort to prove it by independent witness has been made.
22. Col. Ajai Singh Shekhawat, a four year senior to Sandeep was posted at Babeena between April, 1996 to October, 1997. He has entered the witness box as P.W. 4 and has stated that in the last week of December, 1996, Sandeep had gone to N.O.I.D.A. to see his ailing mother and when he and his wife had gone for a courtesy call to Sandhya to enquire about her well being, she told them that Sandeep''s mother is not sick but he goes to Delhi where he visits prostitutes to satisfy his lust. He has further stated that on 8th February, 1997 a group of officers including the two had gone on a planned visit to Khajuraho and Orchcha. In Khajuraho they were staying in a Mess where Sandhya accused Sandeep that he had come to Khajuraho only to emulate the exotic postures with visiting foreign ladles there. This created tension in the group and they had to return to Babeena cancelling their onward plan to go to Orchcha. He has further stated that after a fortnight on 23rd February, 1997, the elder brother of Sandeep, Capt. Kuldeep Singh, alongwith his wife and two children had come to Babeena and when they went to Sandeep''s house, Sandeep was not there and Sandhya did not open the door so they all came to his house. Thus, he summoned Sandeeop from office. On Sandeep''s request to join them for lunch, he also accompanied them to his house, and while all were sitting in the drawing room, Sandeeop asked Sandhya for water, she shouted that she had already asked his brother to go away and she is not a maid servant and would not cook food for them and, therefore, all of them, excluding Sandhya, moved to his house where they had lunch. After lunch he went to drop them to Sandeep''s house and when Sandeep rang the door bell, she came to the door and shouted "bloody fool why have you brought this dog and his pups even though I have said so many times that I do not want to see their faces". After which he returned home and his brother also went away. He also narrated about an instance of 11th March, 1997 when he alongwith Sandeep and Sandhya had to go for the Platinum Jubilee function to Dehradun. Enroute they stayed at Sandeep''s house at N.O.I.D.A. Even before reaching there, there were exchanges of hot words between the two as she was opposed to going to N.O.I.D.A. and seeing the tension they left for Dehradun early next morning forgetting behind his wife''s jewellery. While returning he had asked Sandeep to go to N.O.I.D.A. to collect her jewellery but they had to change the plan because Sandhya said "bloody fool I told you,'' I do not want to see you fucking parents again". He narrated about an instance of April, 1997 when he had thrown a party; at his residence and Sandeep and Sandhya were the last ones to come even after the Commanding Officer had arrived and Sandhya, contrary to protocol, was wearing a mini skirt and sat next to his wife and started narrating in a loud voice that Sandeep is a sex maniac and womeniser and a regular visitor to prostitutes, and then after asking for liquor, she started drinking.
23. Lt. Vikram and his wife Chetna Corolious were posted in Jaisalmer between October, 1997 to October, 1988. Her husband had died there on duty on 24.10.1998. she remarried a civilian and later on was commissioned in the Army on 2.9.2000. She entered the witness box as P.W. 5 and narrated about certain instances to which she was a witness. She has stated that when they joined the Regiment in Jaisalmer, they went on traditional courtsey call in November, 1997 to the residence of Sandeep, who welcomed them but when Sandhaya came after five minutes, she did not entertain them and they had to leave when she said that she cannot entertain or look after them as she was high. She has also disclosed about an instance at Jaipur where she alongwith her husband and Sandeep with his wife had gone to witness a traditional football match at Jodhpur where they were lodged at the Officers Mess. After dinner, they both went to the room of Sandeep and Sandhya to go out for Ice Cream where she heard Sandhaya accusing Sandeep of having an affair with her and thats why Sandeep had taken a room next to theirs. For this episode, Sandeep had to apologise to her husband the next morning. She has further disclosed about an instance in March, 1998 when at the Regimental get together Sandhaya had shouted at Sandeep in front of all the officers and their family ''shut up you stupid and don''t talk to anyone''. She further disclosed that when Sandeep had gone for temporary duty to Jodhpur, Sandhaya told her that Sandeep goes there because he was having an affair with somebody there.
24. In Army circles the Commanding Officer of a Regiment is a father figure especially when the Regiment is posted at such remote places like Jaisalmer. Col. D. P. Mamgain was the Commanding Officer of the Regiment at Jaisalmer between December, 1997 to May, 1999. He entered the witness box as P.W. 3. He narrated about an incident of 1st May, 1998 when at about 11-00 p.m. in the night he received a call from Sandeep asking him to reach his residence because Sandhya was fighting. Therefore, he alongwith his wife went there and saw Sandhya lying in bed where a half full glass of whisky was kept and she was drunk and upon asking her the reason she said that Sandeep was not taking her to her parents, whereupon he advised Sandeep to plan his leave whereupon he purposely sent him on leave. He has also deposed about an incident of 6th July, 1998 when he received a frantic call at about 12 mid night from Sandeep asking him to come immediately as Sandhya was not well. Upon reaching his house alongwith his wife, he found Sandhya totally drunk and in a semi unconscious state with a bottle of sleeping pills lying nearby and she was in. no stage even to talk, and therefore, a doctor had to be called who diagnosed that apart from taking alcohol she had also taken sleeping pills and accordingly had to be treated. He also stated that the relationship between the two was also telling upon the performance of Sandeep and, therefore, he had to issue two warning letters to him and though Sandhya''s father who was called by Sandeep, came but he did not help matters. He has also stated that there was general talk in the Regiment that the relations between the two had deteriorated to a large extent, and though the Regimental Officers and their families tried their best to help, it went from bad to worse forcing Sandeep to seek a field posting at non-family station.
25. Sri Sandeep Singh, respondent husband has entered the witness box and has detailed at least three instances when Sandhya tried to commit suicide and/or blackmailed him into sending money to her father. He has disclosed that for the first time she attempted suicide in Ahmadnagar on 4.12.1995, second time in Pune on 5.2.1996 and lastly at Jaisalmer on 16.1.1998. He has been cross-examined in detail but has stood his ground. He has also proved letters which point to such a situation. There is a letter of the father of the appellant Sri Viaji Singh dated 9.5.1996 where he made a declaration even to the effect that if any untoward incident occurs due to any act of his daughter, his son-in-law shall neither be held responsible nor guilty of it. He has further declared in the said letter that Sandeep takes pains to secure the interest of his wife. He has proved the circumstances in which the letter was written and the letter has not been denied and the father has also admitted the existence of the reply of Sri Sandeep Singh''s letter.
26. Sri Sandeep Singh has given the details of the instances when Sandhaya had resorted to unfounded character assassination. He has stated that Smt. Sandhaya on several occasions before others including in the army circle used to say that he is a regular visitor to prostitutes. So much so that when he had gone for some work to Pune, she told others that in fact he had gone there to satisfy his lust as prostitutes are freely available there. His testimony could not be dislodged but in fact it was corroborated by different witnesses. She has also not denied applications made by her to the Army Wives Welfare Association where she had mentioned that Sri Sandeep Singh is in the habit of visiting prostitutes which applications are on record and have been proved.
27. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that these complaints were made after filing of the divorce petition and could have been made in a fit anger but this explanation carries no conviction. A lady wife imputing such baseless allegations which were made in the presence of others even before the filing of the divorce petition, cannot be said to have been made in a fit of anger. Had there been any iota of truth in the allegation, the position would have been entirely different, but, there is absolutely no iota of evidence, either direct or otherwise, in fact, no effort was made to prove the allegation by the appellant. Not only this, she has made allegations of his having affairs with different ladies, with different army wives and has gone to the extent of imputing motive for his visit to Khajuraho. Situation became so unbearable that he sought non-family posting through his letter dated 28.9.1998, just before the filing of divorce petition so that he does not have to suffer the company of Sandhaya. This, letter has been duly proved. He has also explained why he did not take any extreme steps and tolerated misbehaviour of Sandhaya.
28. In this short period of more than three years all this has happened, coupled with the fact that this Court while making effort for reconciliation between the two, found that there is acute lack of trust between them. If all these instances are considered together, there can be no other conclusion except to hold that it is a case of mental cruelty. Both have been living separately since 23.10.1998, more than a decade as of now. Though counsel for the appellant is vehement that these are trivial instances which have been blown out of proportion because Sandeep cared more for his future prospects and career than his wife. No doubt, the spouse is supposed to strike a pragmatic balance between duty towards the spouse and building his/her career, but, at the same time, as an individual he/she is entitled to his aspirations and to better his career options. It is on record that Sandeep Singh is an exceptional Army Officer, who has been rated very high in different courses and appears to have a bright future. During reconciliation, this Court confronted him with the possibility of this divorce being used against him in his career prospects, he was candid and firm that he would rather leave the Army than stay with Sandhya.
29. The only defence set up apart from denial, is that Sandeep and his father demanded dowry and when demand could not be met, she was maltreated and is being divorced. It has come on record that in the marriage a Maruti 800 Car and a Refrigerator had also been given. There is document and evidence on record to prove that the Car and the Refrigerator were sold by Sandhya within a couple of months after marriage and the sale proceeds was given to Col. Vijay Singh, his father-in-law, who retained the amount. If the greed of dowry was there, it is beyond comprehension why the money was returned and accepted by the father-in-law. Apart from bald allegations, there is no credible evidence to prove the demand of dowry or torture and to the contrary Sandhya and her father have given certificate of gentlemanly behaviour of Sandeep.
30. It is also urged on behalf of the appellant that she had been selected in the Army and because of her marriage, at the instance of Sandeep, she had given up her career. Certain letters dated 6.1.1995 and 28.1.1995 are on record and the parties have been examined and cross-examined on this issue but it is proved by documentary evidence, which is on record that Sandhaya had been declared medically unfit way back on 12.12.1994 itself. This effort to suppress truth from the husband itself shows the bent of mind of Sandhaya and her father.
31. The sister of Sandeep. Dr. Manju is married to a Merchant Navy Officer and she was working in the Hissar University since prior to Sandeep''s marriage and she used to stay at Hissar itself. Kuldeep Singh, the elder brother and Pradeep Singh, younger brother of Sandeep were in service prior to the Sandeep''s marriage and remained posted outside and Sandeep''s father apart from being recipient of Vishishta Seva Medal, was also an Assistant Professor in Post Graduate College and holds a Ph. D. Degree.
32. Sandhaya has clearly stated that Smt. Chetna did not interfere with them while posted at Jaisalmer and has also stated that she cannot say whether she was good or of bad character. She has also admitted in her statement that Sandeep never used to flirt with ladies and engaged himself in normal talk with them and he also never humiliated Sandhaya in any party. She has admitted that Sandeep''s elder brother Kuldeep had come with his family on 23.2.1997 but has denied that she misbehaved with them. However, she has not explained the testimony of Shekhawat. Though she has denied the incident of 6.7.1998 by raising story of conspiracy between Sandeep, Col. Mamgain and Dr. Raina, she has not been able to discredit their testimony.
33. The younger brother of the appellant, a lawyer, has also been examined as D.W. 3 and apart from denying that his sister used to drink, he has tried to support the stand of Sandhaya that Sandeep''s family was not happy with the dowry. Similarly, Lt. Col. Y. P. Singh, who is the husband of the elder sister of Sandhaya has also been examined as D.W. 4 and has stated that the academic career of Sandeep was excellent. The summons of the divorce case was served on Sandhaya when he alongwith his wife were at Jaisalmer on 23.10.1998 but he does not say that Sandhaya was turned out from the house by Sandeep. He has given contradictory statement so far as dowry is concerned and at a time has denied his presence and relied on hearsay. Smt. Rani''s father and Sandhya''s father were posted together and both were good friends. She has also been examined as D.W. 5 where she has stated in the cross-examination that she had no personal knowledge about the relationship between the two. She has also stated that both families were very happy during the engagement. She has also given a certificate of gentlemanly behaviour to Sandeep. So also, Col. H. Bahadur, who is friend of Sandhya''s father was examined as D.W. 6, who has also given a certificate of good conduct to Sandeep.
34. The academic and service career of Sandeep has been disclosed in paragraph No. 6 of the plaint which has not been denied by the appellant. From Kindergarten onwards he has always secured first division and first position. He appeared for his X and XI standard examination from Rashtriya Indian Military College, Dehradun which he cleared in first division and obtained first position and broke all records of the Board since it came into being from 1978. Again in the XII class from the aforesaid college, he was awarded the gold medal and was adjudged all around best in sport and academic and was also college captain. Again he secured his science graduation from National Defence Academy, Pune and was awarded gold medals for being first in order of merit, best in academic, topper in science stream and always topped in the academics in all streams. He was adjudged the best captain and the best sportsman. He was also adjudged best in Officer Like Qualities (O.L.Q.) by the academy and represented the country in squash and boxing etc. He completed his post graduate from Indian Military Academy at Dehradun, here also he was gold medalist and was awarded sword of honour for all around best credit and was also adjudged as first in the Armoured core and in O.L.Q. After commission, he stood first in the officers course and was awarded Centurion tank. In the D.N.M. Course, intelligence course and as an instructor he stood first in all of them. It is also disclosed that after his marriage, he came second in tank technology and computer course.
35. It has come on record and proved that Sandeep is a teetotaler but Shekhawat, Chetna, Mamgain all have proved that Sandhya was deep in drinking. The statement of Mamgain is very specific. There is a diagnosis of the Doctor attached with his letter as Paper No. 220G2/14 wherein Sandhya has been found to be an alcoholic and also a case of depression. It also shows that she was also treated for sometime but she did not continue the treatment. This report has been proved by Mamgain. There is no convincing evidence to show that it is concocted or fabricated, it is a document prepared in the normal course of business and is worth believing. In fact it lays tremendous credence to the statement of Sandeep.
36. Both come from good and educated families. Their financial and social status appears to be of a high degree. The atmosphere of Army Society, especially in an armoured unit is more formal than casual. Lady wives in the Army command immense respect and in parties they generally have precedence over the officers. They generally are soft spoken and very civilised in their behaviour. A lady wife, and that too from an Army background, making wild accusations against her husband of womanizing, is shocking and abnormal behaviour, to say the least. Publicly humiliating him in parties, is also obnoxious behaviour.
37. Moral character of any civilized person is a prized possession which he has a right to defend at all cost. It is a virtue which if lost once is hard to come by again. Though normally this virtue is not lost at one go or by an accusation here and there, however, If it is dented every now and then and that too by the closest person, is bound to cause deep anguish and frustration. Here is a case where the wife has levelled unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations of the meanest order on her husband, not in the privacy of her confined bed room, not in informal close gatherings, but in formal army traditional gatherings full of his peers who have a key to his future and life. If a lie is repeated over and over again it starts sounding convincing together with this, the behaviour of turning away the younger brother and his family, refusing to entertain courtesy calls are either the actions of a sick body and soul or are deliberate. In either case, it all adds up to a hopeless and failed relation. The fact that the husband did not retort in any manner for the last so many years, does not mean that he has to bear it for his life. He withstood the tirade for years together and finding no other avenue, opened the last latch and filed the petition.
38. It is an unfortunate saga of a failed relationship and forcing its continuance would lead to further anguish, frustration and would deprive both of whatever is left of their lives. It has been more than a decade since they are living separately. Filing of criminal cases has further poisoned the relationship. Taking a holistic view of the situation, the Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the bond has broken beyond repair with no chances of reconciliation. It would not only be unreasonable, but dangerous too, to force them together. It is always best to pick out whatever remains from the wreckage and start afresh. It is better to have one in the hand than to venture for the two in the thorny bush. Under these compelling circumstances, the decree of divorce has rightly been granted and does not call for any interference.
39. For the reasons above, this appeal fails and is dismissed but without costs.
