1. 'Cruelty' as a matrimonial offence is not necessarily a mate preserve and certainly not so where it is the husband and his relations who are at the receiving end, as in the case here. There is ample material on record to show the quarrelsome nature of the wife and of the occasions when she had gone to the extent of beating up not only her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law but her husband too. Not without significance in this behalf being the observation of the trial Court to the effect that the husband was a frail-looking young man compared to the robust and heavier built wife.
2. According to the husband, the trouble between him and his wife started about a year after their marriage when she began pressurizing him to live separately from the other members of his family. He deposed in this behalf that he was not only the eldest but also the sole earning member of the family and he could not. therefore, live apart from them. His wife then started quarrelling with him and his relations, and would on occasions, beat up his old mother and young sisters. Particular reference was made to the incident of October 1980 when after quarrelling with his mother and sisters, she left the house and went to her parents home. He was not there at that time when this happened. He then accompanied by his father and two respectable Sunil Kumar and Krishan Kumar, went to bring her back hut she refused.
3. There is evidence on record to show that it was invariably the husband who sought reconciliation with his wife when troubles arose. Mention here must, in the first instance, be made to the testimony of the husband Hussan Lal regarding the application made to the Balmik Sabha for the settlement of differences between them. When this could not be done. he filed the application Ext. D/ 1 before the Red Cross Association. A compromise, he stated, was then arrived at but as soon as she came out of the office of the Association, she refused to accompany him to his house. To prove the application Ext: P/1, there is the testimony of P.W.1 Mrs. Ravi Jain.
4. The evidence on record also shows that their matters had even gone to the police. This was in fact deposed to by the wife's witness R,W. 2 Tej Krishan who stated that a dispute between the husband and wife had come up before the police in September or October 1982. He along with other respectables had gone to the police station in this connection. There, the husband complained that his wife used to beat him. The matter was then compromised and Rani Devi went back with her husband, but she was later turned out of the house and he refused to keep her thereafter. It is pertinent to note that this complaint of the wife beating the husband was made much before the dispute between husband and wife came to Court. As regards the wife beating her mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and also her husband, besides the testimony of the husband Hassan Lal, there is also the statement of his neighbor P.W.3 Sunil Kumar, who deposed to the quarrelsome nature of the wife and he went on to deposed to the occasion in October, 1982 when he saw Rani Devi actually beating up her mother-in-law and. sisters-in-law so much so that he had to-get her mother-in-law admitted in the hospital on that day. P.W. 4. Parkash Kaur mother of the husband Hussan Lal also deposed to this effect when she came into the witness box. There is then the testimony of P.W. 5 Dr. Des Raj of the Northern Railway Hospital, Jullundur City; who deposed to the admission of Parkash Kaur in the hospital as a case of suspected head injury. She was, however, discharged two days later.
5. The case as sought to be set up by the wife Rani Devi, on the other hand, lacks plausibility and cannot, therefore, be accepted. Her plea was that her husband was dissatisfied with the dowry brought by her and he consistency demanded money from, her to marry off his young sisters. In September 1982 the stated that when she had gone to attend the marriage of her cousin, her husband filed the present petition against her. In the witness-box, she deposed that it was in fact she, who had been beaten and turned out of the house by her husband. The only witness to support her, R.W.2 Tej Krishan, who, as mentioned earlier, deposed to the occasion when he went to the police station with regard to the dispute between the husband and a wife.
6. As regards the plea of the wife that her husband was dissatisfied with the dowry brought by her and of the demands by him for more money from her parents, it is pertinent to note that counsel could point to no material on record to corroborate her bald statement to this effect. It is significant here that these was no mention of any particular occasion when such a demand may have been made nor had any person been named before whom any such mention was even made. The omission of any one from amongst' her parents, brothers or sisters coming-forth to support her on this point has its own tale to tell-The allegations of Rani Devi regarding dowry and demand for money are thus wholly without basis.
7. 'Cruelty' on the pact of the wife stands writ large by the evidence brought-forth by the husband and there are no mitigating circumstances in favour of the wife to absolve her from the blame accruing to her on this account. Such being the situation, there is clearly no occasion provided here for. interfering with the decree for judicial separation as granted to the husband.
8. This appeal is accordingly hereby dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
9. Appeal dismissed.