Category Archives: desertion

wife who deserted husband in 1992 tries to contest divorce decree but looses completely !!

 

Marriage in 1992, Parties have stayed together hardly for a few months. Wife ridicules and ill treats husband as she is more qualified than him. She also leaves him and goes away to parental home. Husband wins divorce in lower court, but wife contests the case which comes up for decision in march 2017 !! Wife loses the case (in March 2017). It is NOT know if wife has gone on further appeal !!


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

 

FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.86 OF 2014

 

Vaishali w/o. Rajesh Barde,
Aged : Adult,
R/o. C/o. Shri Hiwarkar,
E.W.S. Colony, New Somwaripeth,
Nagpur. : APPELLANT

…VERSUS…

Rahesh s/o. Harihar Barde,
Aged 41 years,
Occupation : School Teacher,
R/o. C/o. Samajsewa Vidyalaya,
Wadhona, Tah. Nagbhid,
Distt. Chandrapur. : RESPONDENT

 


Ms. Muley, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Dongre, Advocate for the Respondent.


CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 1 st MARCH, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)

By this family court appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Family Court, dated 17.04.2008 allowing a petition filed by the respondent for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 27.07.1992 at Nagpur as per Hindu rites and customs. The appellant and the respondent started residing at village Sawargaon where, the respondent- husband was working as a teacher. It is the case of the husband in the petition filed by him for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion that the appellant-wife was more qualified than him and, therefore, she always felt that the respondent-husband was not a proper match for her. It is pleaded by the husband in the petition that the wife did not have a desire to live with the husband in Sawargaon. It is pleaded that the wife used to pick up quarrel with the husband time and again and used to abuse him in filthy language. It is pleaded that the husband always tried to adjust and ensure that there was harmony in the house but, the wife always quarreled and tried to lower the image of the husband in the society. It is pleaded that the wife did not have any intention to perform the matrimonial duties and she used to leave the matrimonial home at odd times. It is stated that due to such behaviour of the wife, the husband had to suffer great mental agony. It is pleaded that in the first Diwali after the marriage, the wife left the house of the husband without informing him and returned to the house on the day of Laxmipujan. It is pleaded that the acts on the part of the wife amounted to cruelty and the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The husband pleaded that he was also entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. It is pleaded that the wife had left the matrimonial house sometime in May 1994 without any just or reasonable excuse and she was staying away from the husband for about 11 years, till the petition was filed. It is pleaded by the husband that the wife had flatly refused to come to Bramhapuri where his parents resided. It is pleaded that the husband took several steps to bring back the wife to the matrimonial home, but the wife did not oblige. It is pleaded that the wife and her parents had informed the husband that she was not ready to cohabit with the husband in the matrimonial home and the marriage between the parties should be dissolved. The husband sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

The wife filed the written statement and denied the claim of the husband. The wife denied that she had treated the husband with cruelty. The wife denied that she illtreated the husband because she was highly educated. The wife denied that she had no desire to live with the parents at Bramhapuri. The wife denied that she had left the husband without any just or reasonable excuse. The wife also denied that she used to leave the matrimonial house time and again without any rhyme or reason without informing the husband. The wife denied all the adverse allegations that were levelled against her by the husband. In the specific pleadings, the wife pleaded that the allegations levelled against the wife by the husband only showed the normal wear and tear in the matrimonial home. It is pleaded that the allegations levelled by the husband against the wife, even if held to be proved could not amount to cruelty. It is pleaded that the husband was always suspecting the wife’s character and the said act on the part of the husband caused severe mental agony to the wife. The wife pleaded that an irretrievable break irretrievably brake down of a marriage is not a ground for granting a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife pleaded that the husband has not pointed out that the wife had a desire to live separately from the husband. The wife sought for the dismissal of the petition.

The wife had filed a separate petition against the husband under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for grant of maintenance. Both the petitions, the one filed by the husband for the decree of divorce and the other filed by the wife for maintenance were tried together by the Family Court and while partly allowing the petition filed by the wife for maintenance, the Family Court allowed the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The judgment of the Family Court, so far as it grants a decree of divorce in favour of the husband is challenged by the wife in this family court appeal.

Ms. Muley, the learned counsel for the appellant-husband submitted that the Family Court could not have granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband. It is stated that the Family Court was not justified in holding that the wife was not desirous of residing with the husband and she had consented for a decree of divorce by mutual consent, by accepting a sum of Rs.3/- lakhs. It is submitted that the allegations levelled by the husband against the wife would at the most be considered to be the acts showing the normal wear and tear in a matrimonial house and the said allegations, even if they are held to be proved, cannot result in holding that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. It is submitted that a decree of divorce could not have been passed in favour of the husband on the ground of desertion, as there is evidence on record to show that after the wife left the matrimonial house in May 1994, she had tried to join the company of the husband by returning to the matrimonial home in July 1994. It is submitted that neither is the factum of desertion proved, nor is the factum of ‘animus deserendi’ proved in this case. The learned counsel submitted that the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce was liable to be dismissed.

Shri Dongre, the learned counsel for the respondent-husband has supported the judgment of the Family Court. It is submitted that the Family Court has considered the evidence of the parties in detail and has held that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty and that she had deserted him. It is submitted that there was ample evidence on record to show that the wife was having a superiority complex and she always used to quarrel with the husband, as she was more educated than him. It is submitted that the husband had clearly stated in his cross-examination on the suggestion made on behalf of the wife that the wife had pointed out a spelling mistake made by the husband and had admonished him that being educated he should not have committed such a mistake. It is stated that the husband had stated in his evidence, especially in his cross-examination that the wife used to taunt the husband because he was less educated than the wife. It is stated that the husband had stated in his cross-examination that he has stated in his affidavit about the behavior of the wife that lowered his image in the society. It is stated that the husband admitted that the wife had demanded divorce on payment of an amount. It is stated that the suggestion given on behalf of the wife to the husband in his cross-examination and the answers of the husband thereto would clearly prove that the wife was treating the husband with cruelty. It is submitted that the Family Court has rightly held that the wife had left the company of the husband without any just or reasonable excuse. It is submitted that the Family Court has rightly held that the wife had deserted the husband and the husband was not responsible for the separation. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the husband had driven the wife out of the house and that he had not taken any steps for residing together. The learned J-fca86.14.odt 7/14 counsel sought for the dismissal of the Family Court Appeal.

It appears on a perusal of the original record and proceedings and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, that the following points arise for determination in this family court appeal :

i) Whether the husband proves that the wife has treated him with cruelty ?

ii) Whether the husband proves that the wife has deserted him without any just or reasonable excuse ?

iii) Whether the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce ?

iv) What order ?

The pleadings of the parties are narrated in detail in the earlier part of the judgment. The husband had entered into the witness box and had reiterated the facts stated by him in his pleadings in regard to the nature of the wife. He had stated that she used to leave the house without any rhyme or reason without informing the husband. The husband had also stated in his evidence that the wife did not like to reside in Bramhapuri along with his parents and that on the first Diwali she had left the house without informing him and had returned on the day of Laxmipujan. It is stated by the husband that the wife always used to taunt him because she had secured the degrees of M.Com., M.A. and M. Phil. and the husband was not as educated as her. The husband stated that time and again the wife used to quarrel with the husband and sometimes the neighbours had to intervene and this conduct on the part J-fca86.14.odt 8/14 of the wife has lowered his image in the society. The husband narrated all the other facts pleaded by him in his petition in his examination in chief. The husband was cross-examined on behalf of the wife. The cross- examination of the husband is very material. In fact, the suggestions given on behalf of the wife to the husband proves the case of the husband that the wife had treated him with cruelty. The husband has admitted in his cross-examination that the wife was more qualified than him and that once she had pointed out a spelling mistake and had scolded him that he should not have committed such a mistake, being educated. The husband admitted in his cross-examination that there were certain instances which made him believe that the wife was not ready to live with him. The husband stated in his cross-examination that he had stated in his affidavit about the wife’s behavior which resulted in lowering his image in the society. The husband admitted in his cross- examination that Laxmipujan falls on 3rd or 4th day of Diwali festival and the wife had left the matrimonial home on Diwali without informing him and had returned on the day of Laxmipujan. The husband admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know where the wife had gone on the day of Diwali. The husband admitted that he had no knowledge about the plan of the wife to leave the matrimonial home in May 1994. The husband admitted that the wife had demanded divorce on payment of amount. The husband stated that he had stated about the fact in respect of demand of money by the wife in his affidavit.

It is apparent from the cross-examination of the husband that for a petty matter, where the husband committed a spelling mistake, the wife took the husband to task in the early days of marriage and told him that he should not have committed such a mistake, when he was educated. The parties had resided together for not more than four months. Within a short period of four months a normal wife may not even open up to tell her husband that he has committed a mistake and that he should never commit it again. It is apparent that within a short stay of about four months with the husband in the matrimonial home during which period, she had left him time and again and had gone to her parents, she had admonished the husband for a trifle spelling mistake. The husband had stated in his cross-examination that the wife used to taunt him because he was less educated. This suggestion should not have come from the side of the wife to the husband in his cross-examination. The husband had also stated in his cross-examination that the wife had tried to lower his image in the society and that she had left the house on the first day of Diwali without informing him and returned to the house on the day of Laxmipujan. The husband had stated in his cross-examination that he was not aware about the plan of the wife to leave the matrimonial house in May 1994. The husband also stated in his cross-examination that the wife had demanded divorce on payment of J-fca86.14.odt 10/14 amount. This fact is fortified by a consent divorce petition filed by the parties in the Family Court. The husband and the wife had agreed that the husband would pay a sum of Rs.3/- lakhs to the wife as full and final settlement and that the marriage between them would be dissolved. After filing the petition in the Court, the Family Court has noted that when the parties were called for recording the statement in respect of consent divorce, the wife had backed out. It is apparent from the cross- examination of the husband that the wife had demanded divorce from the husband on payment of amount and it appears that the wife was not ready to accept the amount of Rs.3/- lakhs as she desired some more amount when the matter was settled and a consent decree was to be passed by the Court. The husband had not only examined himself but had also examined his uncle Shri Keshav Mandavgade. This witness had clearly stated in his examination in chief that whenever the husband asked the wife to come along with him to his parents at Bramhapuri, she refused to accompany him. It is stated that without informing the husband, the wife used to go to Nagpur to her parental home from Sawargaon, when the husband was out of the house on his duties. Shri Keshav has stated in the examination in chief that when he had asked the wife not to behave in such a fashion, the wife said that the husband and his family members are not dignified people and they are not much educated. The witness stated in his evidence that the wife told him that she did not get a matrimonial house as per her desire and she had married the husband only with a view to please her parents. The witness stated that the wife had admitted that because she was not happy in the matrimonial home, she used to leave the house and go to her parental house at Nagpur. The witness also stated in his evidence that the wife told him that she was ready to sever the matrimonial relationship, but the amount spent by her father on the marriage should be returned to her. Though, this witness was cross-examined on behalf of the wife, there is no cross-examination on the aforesaid facts stated by him in his examination in chief. In the absence of any cross-examination on the material evidence tendered by Shri Keshav Mandavgade, the facts stated by him in his examination in chief remain unchallenged and the husband is successful in proving his case that the wife had treated him with cruelty on the basis of his evidence as also the evidence of Shri Keshav Mandavgade. It is also notable that though the wife had not pleaded in her written statement that she had found a photograph of a woman in a religious book and the husband had snatched the said photograph from her and that he had an affair with the said lady, the wife went on to make the aforesaid statements in her examination in chief. The Family Court rightly held that levelling serious allegations on the character of a party and failing to prove the same would tantamount to cruelty. The wife has stated in the evidence, though there are no pleadings in that regard, that when the wife had enquired about the photograph of a woman in a religious book of the husband, the husband had started torturing and beating her mercilessly. If the husband had filed the petition eleven years after the separation of the parties and if this incident had really occurred, the wife would have, in the first place pleaded these facts in her written statement. The wife, however, did not do so. Levelling serious allegations against the husband’s character without pleading and proving the same, if considered along with the other acts on the part of the wife would tantamount to cruelty. The Family Court held and rightly so that the wife had deserted the husband without any just or reasonable excuse. The parties were residing separately for more than eleven years before the husband filed the petition for a decree of divorce. The parties had resided together only for four months and there was a separation period of eleven years when the petition was filed. The Family Court, therefore, held on an appreciation of the evidence on record that the husband did not drive away the wife from the matrimonial home, as pleaded by her and the wife had left the company of the husband without any just or reasonable excuse. The Family Court held that it was apparent from the evidence of the parties that there was no intention on the part of the wife to join the company of the husband. The case of the wife that she returned to the matrimonial home with a view to reside with the husband cannot be believed.

Though the wife had issued a legal notice to the husband for claiming maintenance, the wife did not ask the husband to reside along with her. The wife had also not filed any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights. If the wife really desired to live with the husband she would have surely filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights while filing a petition for maintenance. The Family Court has rightly held that the wife started living separately from the husband on her own without any reasonable excuse and she was not ready to resume cohabitation. After having held that the husband had not driven the wife away from the house and that she was responsible for the separation, the Family Court held that the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. We find that the Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the parties to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the husband. We find that the wife was interested in securing money from the husband and was not interested in residing with the husband. The aforesaid position could be fortified by the consent terms that were signed by the parties and presented in the Family Court. The wife then refused to compromise the matter with a view to ensure that the husband pays some more amount. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Family Court was not justified in granting a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.

As the judgment of the Family Court is just and proper, the family court appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE

Advertisements

18 lakhs alimony in spite of 25 years desertion !! Rajastan HC

  • checkered history of fights between spouses
  • husband claims that wife was a widow from her earlier marriage and it was hidden from him
  • he claims that she was also cantankerous
  • after initial spats etc, wife finally leaves in 1991
  • after numerous cases, matter finally reaches Rajastan HC. HC Also sees desertion / decrees desertion
  • However, IN the INTEREST of justice, HC says pay her 6 lakhs in addition to the 12 lakhs already paid !!
    …..and that is EVEN after an 18 year desertion !! …..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

:JUDGMENT:

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.99/1996

APPELLANT :

Smt. Raj Kumari @ Chandrakala w/o Shri Nandlal D/o
Shri Badri Singh, by caste Mali Kachhawaha, resident
of Sardarshahar at present Bikaner.

Versus

RESPONDENT :

Nandlal son of Late Shri Dalchand Ji, By caste Mali,
Sangodiya, resident of Sardarshahar Churu.

Date of Judgment :: 17.10.2016

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Mr. Salil Trivedi, for the appellant/s.
Mr. Rajesh Parihar ) for the respondent/s.
Mr. Vinit Sanadhya)


BY THE COURT:

This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.10.1995 passed by the District Judge, Churu, whereby the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act has been accepted and marriage between the parties has been dissolved.

The dispute between the parties has a checkered history. The petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by the respondent-husband under Sections 12 & 13 of the Act, inter-alia, with the averments that the marriage was solemnized between the parties on 20.11.1989 at Bikaner at the residence of Dr. Durga Gehlot; a daughter was borne out of the wedlock on 5.9.1990. It was alleged that the family members of the wife at the time of marriage wrongly indicated her name as Rajkumari and her age at 21 years, in fact, her real name was Chandrakala and her age as per the school certificate was much more and she was widow of Dr. Anil Kumar Gehlot, whereas it was informed that she was unmarried. It was alleged that marriage was solemnized by committing fraud, the said fact came to the notice of the husband during the posting at Bikaner and FIR No.197 dated 25.10.1993 was lodged, which is being investigated. It was alleged that the wife was of cantankerous nature and behaved cruelly with the husband and family members. It was alleged that while behaving in the offending manner, the wife continued to move between her matrimonial home and parental home and on 7.12.1991, uncle (mama) of the wife, without permission took her with him. Whereafter, she did not turn up till 25.10.1993 and continued to refuse to live with the husband. Before 25.10.1993, several efforts were made for bringing her back, however, the parents and aunty of the wife intimated that if the husband wants to come and live with her, he can come and live, the wife was not prepared to go and live with him. It was also alleged that despite repeated efforts made between 7.12.1991 to 25.10.1993, the wife did not return back and has deserted the husband. Based on the said allegation of cruelty and desertion, the petition was filed.

The appellant herein was served with the notice of the petition, she appeared through counsel before the trial court, however, on 26.8.1995, her counsel pleaded no instructions and therefore, ex-parte proceedings were initiated.

On behalf of the husband, four witnesses were examined and documents were exhibited.

After hearing counsel for the husband, the trial court came to the conclusion that desertion was proved, cruelty was also proved, however, it was held that in so far as fraud and declaring the marriage as void was concerned, the same was not proved and consequently, passed decree on 5.10.1995 for dissolution of marriage.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before this Court. When initially, the appeal came up before this Court for hearing, by judgment dated 13.12.2001, the appeal was dismissed on merits.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Division Bench by filing D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Civil) No.8/2002. The Division Bench by its order dated 15.10.2009, set-aside the finding recorded by the trial court as well as learned Single Judge regarding curelty. However, qua the ground of desertion, it was noticed that the learned Single Judge has not given his own finding on said aspect and question as to whether ground of desertion was made or not is required to be probed into thread bare by the learned Single Judge and in those circumstances, the matter was sent back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the question of desertion afresh.

During the pendency of the present appeal, post remand, efforts were made for resolving the dispute amicably; on 19.8.2015, it was noticed by this Court in the order-sheet that the appellant wanted the ex-parte decree granted in favour of the respondent-husband Nandlal to be set-aside as she wanted to press for restoration of status as married wife of Nandlal. It was also noticed that the respondent-husband has since remarried with another woman namely Ambika in November, 1997 and out of second marriage, a child named Aditya was born and was aged 15 years and that there was no possibility for restoration of matrimonial home with the appellant. However, readiness and willingness to pay permanent alimony was expressed, the court directed deposited Rs.12,00,000/- towards part payment of amount of permanent alimony and it was directed that the said payment would remain subject to final decision of the present appeal, which amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was deposited by the respondent as noticed by order-sheet dated 5.1.2016.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court committed error in granting the decree on the ground of desertion, inasmuch as, the respondent had failed to plead and prove the necessary ingredients for proving the ground of desertion. It was submitted that irrespective of the fact that matter was proceeding ex-parte against the appellant, it was incumbent for the trial court to objectively assess the evidence available on record, which clearly indicates that no ground is made out as envisaged by provisions of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act.

Reference was made to the second explanation to Section 13 and it was submitted that there was reasonable cause for the appellant to leave the matrimonial home, inasmuch as, circumstances were created forcing her to leave the matrimonial home. It was submitted that the very fact that FIR was lodged by the respondent alleging fraud on 25.10.1993, necessarily means that before 7.12.1991, on account of allegations made, atmosphere was created which resulted in the appellant leaving the matrimonial home and therefore, the necessary ingredients for providing desertion are not available and consequently, the finding of the trial court in this regard deserves to be set-aside. It was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the judgment impugned be set-aside.

Vehemently, opposing the submissions, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that from the material available on record, it was apparent that the appellant has deserted the respondent for a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and had no cause for doing so; the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant seeking to allege that there was reasonable cause on account of the fact that the respondent lodged an FIR on 25.10.1993 alleging fraud against the petitioner is, in fact, seeking premium on the wrongs committed by her. It as further submitted that from the evidence available on record, the desertion is proved, inasmuch as, the appellant chose not to contest the petition after putting an appearance before the trial court; even after passing of the impugned judgment, application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the trial court on 19.1.1996 and therefore, the appellant has no cause.

It was submitted that the desertion is also proved from the very fact that the appellant did not take any steps for restitution of conjugal right, if she had any interest in restoration of the matrimonial home.

Further submissions were made that present is a typical case of irretrievable break down of marriage, inasmuch as, admittedly parties are living separately since 7.12.1991 i.e. over 25 years now and after passing of the ex-parte decree and dismissal of application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC and before the respondent was served with a notices in the present appeal, the respondent had contracted another marriage and has a child from the said wedlock. It was prayed that the judgment passed by the trial court is justified and same does not call for any interference.

Further submissions were made that under the directions of this Court the respondent had already paid a huge sum of Rs.12,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and is prepared to pay further reasonable sum in this regard and therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed.

Reliance was placed on Sujata Uday Patil v. Uday Madhukar Patil : (2006)13 SCC 272.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC was filed by the appellant inter-alia for placing on record the copy of judgment dated 11.6.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner in Cr. Appeal No.2/2007 (State of Rajasthan v. Nandlal) and copy of the statement dated 18.10.2001 recorded in the criminal trial before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, No.2, Bikaner. In the said application, except for indicating that the documents came into existence during the pendency of the appeal, nothing has been indicated as to how the documents were relevant for the proper adjudication of the present appeal and even during the course of submissions in the present appeal, no reference was made to either the application and / or the documents annexed with the application. In view thereof, besides the fact that no submissions were made qua the application and documents, even otherwise, there is no substance in the application, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

The essential condition for proving the ground of desertion are (i) – factum of separation and (ii)- intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly, two elements are essential so far as deserted spouse is concerned, (i)- absence of consent and (ii)- absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to spouse leaving matrimonial home to form necessary intention aforesaid. In the present case, the husband, in the petition seeking divorce alleged that on 7.12.1991 uncle of the appellant without permission took the appellant to Bikaner from Sardarshahar and whereafter, she did not return back to the matrimonial home till 25.10.1993 and continued to deny to live with the respondent at Sardarshahar. Efforts were made by the respondent and his close relatives before 25.10.1993 for bringing her back which was responded by counter proposal to the respondent to go and live with the wife at her parental home. It was also alleged that besides not returning back to the matrimonial home at Sardarshahar, the appellant did not visit the place where the respondent was serving, however, all the efforts made in this regard failed and it was apparent that the wife has deserted him. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

As already noticed herein-before, after service though the appellant put in appearance, whereafter as the counsel pleaded no instructions, the matter proceed ex-parte against the appellant and on behalf of the respondent, 04 witnesses were examined.

The respondent appeared as AW-1 and reiterated the contents of the petition. Further assertions were made that despite several efforts being made by the respondent and people of the Society, the appellant did not return back to the matrimonial home.

AW-2 Bharat Bhushan Arya, a lawyer by profession and Secretary of Mali Samaj, Bikaner and Vice President of Rajasthan Mali Samaj appeared in the witness-box and stated that despite efforts being made by the respondent, the father, uncle and aunty of the appellant did not send the appellant back to the matrimonial home. He tried to convince the appellant / parties to go back to the matrimonial home, which was rejected and it was suggested that the respondent should go and live with them.

AW-3 Banwari Lal, elder brother of the respondent also stated that uncle of the appellant took her to Bikaner from Sardarshahar and stated that the respondent can come and live with them, efforts were made to bring the appellant with them, the uncle of the appellant refused, efforts were made through Mali Samaj, however, that also did not succeed. AW-4 Rajendra, a neighbour of the respondent was examined, who also stated similar facts regarding uncle of the appellant taking her back to parental home and stated that the respondent can come and live with them.

From the material available on record as well as the submissions made by counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the appellant had left the matrimonial home on 7.12.1991 and despite the efforts made by the respondent, his family members and people of Mali Samaj, the appellant did not return back to the matrimonial home, on the other hand, it was insisted that in case, the respondent wants, he can come and live at the parental home of the appellant.

No submissions were made by counsel for the appellant to indicate that any efforts were made by the appellant to get back into the matrimonial home including filing of petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant seeking to make out a case of reasonable cause in terms of second explanation to Section 13 is concerned, the said explanation reads as under:- “Explanation.- In this sub-section, the expression “desertion” means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.”

The submission made on behalf of the appellant is that from the dates indicated in the petition, whereby the appellant left the matrimonial home on 7.12.1991 and a FIR was lodged by the respondent alleging fraud on 25.10.1993 against the appellant, necessarily means that the atmosphere in the matrimonial home was such that it forced the appellant to leave the matrimonial home and therefore, she had a reasonable cause and therefore, the necessary ingredients as indicated in the explanation has not been fulfilled.

Besides the fact that no such plea was available before the trial court and consequently, there is no material available on record regarding the alleged reasonable cause for the appellant to leave the matrimonial home, it was the specific case of the respondent that as soon as he came to know of the fraud having been committed by the appellant, he lodged the FIR on 25.10.1993, this is not the case of the appellant that after the FIR was lodged that she left the matrimonial home and / or that the respondent came to know about the facts, which led to filing of the FIR even long prior to 7.12.1991 and the atmosphere was so poisoned that she have no option but to leave the matrimonial home. As the respondent has clearly indicated that the FIR was lodged on 25.10.1993 immediately on coming to know of the fraud on 25.10.1993, that cannot be a reasonable cause on 7.12.1991 for the appellant to leave the matrimonial home and therefore, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant seeking to plead reasonable cause for the appellant to leave the matrimonial home has no basis.

The ingredients of desertion as noticed hereinbefore i.e. factum of separation and intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end are both proved and the defence as sought to be now projected in the appeal based on the available material having been found to be non-existent, the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has deserted the respondent without any reasonable cause and was further justified in granting decree for dissolution of marriage between the parties. So far as irretrievable break down of marriage between the parties is concerned, the facts as noticed hereinbefore, are apparent wherein the parties are living separately for over 25 years now, after the decree for dissolution of marriage was granted by the trial court and the application for setting aside ex-parte decree was also rejected and before the notices of the present appeal were served on respondent, he had contracted marriage way-back in the year 1997 and therefore, the test laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard as to whether the marriage can be saved in the circumstances, the answer to the said aspect would be a big ‘No’.

So far as grant of permanent alimony is concerned, in the submissions made before the Court, though no submissions were made by learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent offered to pay reasonable sum towards permanent alimony to the appellant and also prayed that the fact that a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- has already been paid under the interim directions of this Court, direction can be given. Looking to the over all circumstances of the case, though apparently, no material is available on record for determination of amount of permanent alimony, in view of the fact that the respondent was working as C.I. In the Police Department as noticed in the order-sheet dated 19.8.2015 (supra), in the opinion of this Court ends of justice would meet in case, the respondent is directed to make payment of a further sum of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony besides the sum of Rs.12,00,000/- already paid by the appellant under the directions of this Court dated 19.8.2015 (supra). The amount be paid within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.

In view of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

However, the respondent is directed to make further payment of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the appellant by way of permanent alimony within a period of three months and the order dated 19.8.2015 (supra) passed by this Court directing payment of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- by way of part payment of permanent alimony is made absolute.

No order as to costs.

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

rm/-

I CAN’T live with a low paid Inspector says wife. Husband gets divorce, wife gets 10K p.m. ! P&H HC

A wife leaves her husband and files false cases on him. She files complaints with his superiors etc. The Husband says that the wife deserted him because he was just an Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Even the couple’s son who is taken away by the mother, joins the father and testifies in favor of the father. Wife makes various allegations against the husband but the court observes that there is NOT an iota of evidence supporting these allegations. So, the decree of divorce granted in favor of the husband by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, is confirmed by the Hon HC. However considering the salary of the husband and the cost of living, wife gets 10 K maintenance per month !!

This maintenance is in spite of the Hon court clearly stating the fact of desertion by the wife as follows “….Appellant-Kavita RW1 in her cross-examination has specifically deposed that she does not want to live with her husband. This statement coupled with the admitted fact that the appellant had left her matrimonial home on 31.7.2002, clearly proves the animus of desertion on her part…..”

The Husband argues that “…There is no justification for enhancement of the maintenance/alimony to 10,000/- per month. The appellant has to maintain himself, his aged mother and an unmarried son. He also has to provide financial support to his younger sister, who is a widow, along with her three minor children. ….” But the court refuses to accept that argument and dismisses his petition against enhancement of maintenance


FAO Nos. M-66 of 2008 (O&M) and M-361 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

FAO No. M- 66 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: Feb. 26,2016
Kavita ……………………………………… Appellant
Versus
Krishan Kumar ……………………….. Respondent

AND

FAO No. M-361 of 2013
Krishan Kumar ………………………….. Appellant
Versus
Kavita ……………………………………. Respondent

Coram:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate
for the appellant (in FAO No. M-66 of 2008)
for the respondent (in FAO No. M-361 of 2013)

Mr. D.K.Singla, Advocate
for the respondent (in FAO No. M-66 of 2008)
for the appellant (in FAO No.M-361 of 2013)


LISA GILL, J.

This judgment shall dispose of FAO No.M-66 of 2008 (Kavita v. Krishan Kumar) and FAO No.M-361 of 2013 (Krishan Kumar v. Kavita), which arise out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties.

FAO No.M-66 of 2008 has been preferred by Kavita being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-husband Krishan Kumar under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been allowed thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties.

FAO No.M-361 of 2013 has been preferred by Krishan Kumar challenging the order dated 18.9.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby maintenance under Section 25 of the Act has been enhanced from 3,000/- per month to 10,000/- per month.

The facts as revealed in the petition filed by Krishan Kumar under Section 13-A of the Act for dissolution of marriage are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.9.1984 at Yamuna Nagar according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children were born out of this wedlock. It was averred in the petition that his wife Kavita started taunting and harassing him some time after their marriage on account of his perceived poverty while asserting that she belongs to a rich family. She did not treat his old parents with due respect, refused to cook food and at times would serve half baked food or deliberately put extra chillies in it. It was further alleged that Kavita deserted the matrimonial home on 31.7.2002 without informing him or any other family member. She did not return home despite repeated requests and on the contrary made false allegations that Krishan was having extra marital relations. The appellant Kavita allegedly lodged false and frivolous complaints against Krishan Kumar. In this situation, a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion was preferred by Krishan Kumar.

The appellant-wife, Kavita, while admitting the factum of marriage between the parties and birth of two sons denied all allegations of cruelty and desertion. It was asserted that the petition for divorce was filed by the husband as a counter-blast to an application filed by the appellant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which was allowed. The husband was stated to be a haughty policeman who was cruel and indifferent towards her because of his illegitimate relations with other women. While denying that she left the matrimonial home on 31.7.2002 it is averred that it was the husband who deserted her as well as their two minor sons to fend for themselves without any rhyme or reason. Therefore, the husband should not be permitted to derive any benefit on account of his own wrong and the petition seeking divorce should be dismissed.

The following issues were framed by the trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties:-

1.Whether the petitioner is entitled to dissolution of marriage and decree of divorce on the ground that he has been treated with cruelty as alleged? OPP

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground that he had been deserted by the respondent? OPR

3.Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition and is not maintainable in the present form? OPP

4.Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition by his own act and conduct? OPP

5.Relief.

Evidence was adduced by the parties. The respondent-husband deposed as PW1 and examined Deepak Kumar PW2, his son, and Brahm Pal, his brother, and produced documentary evidence. The appellant appeared as RW1 and adduced her evidence. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence on record directed dissolution of marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has grossly erred while passing the impugned judgment and decree, especially keeping in view the fact that since the marriage of the parties in the year 1984 there was no trouble upto the year 2002. It is submitted that it is opposed to all probability that the couple would have continued living together without any evidence of discord during all these years and suddenly parted ways in the year 2002 on the ground of cruelty meted out by the appellant since the inception of their marriage. It is urged that the appellant was forced to leave her matrimonial home because of illicit relations developed by the respondent-husband with one Sarabjit Kaur. It is, thus, apparent that the appellant was forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of the acts of the respondent-husband. There is nothing on record to prove cruelty or desertion on the part of the appellant, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree should be set aside.

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent with reference to the evidence on record supports the impugned judgment and decree and prays for upholding the same. It is submitted that desertion on the part of the appellant is apparent on record. She has categorically stated that she does not want to live with her husband who is working as an Assistant Sub Inspector with the Haryana Police. The appellant had withdrawn from her husband’s society without any reasonable or sufficient cause. She had been giving frivolous and false complaints to the police authorities against the respondent. The appellant wife miserably failed to prove adulterous relations of the husband as alleged. therefore, cruelty and desertion is clearly proved on the appellant’s part. He, thus, prays for upholding the impugned judgment and decree.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and evidence on record.

It is admitted that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.9.1984 and two children were born out of this wedlock. One of the sons of the parties i.e. Deepak Kumar PW2 is residing with the respondent-husband.

A perusal of the record reveals that leaving of the matrimonial home on 31.7.2002 is admitted by the appellant though it is sought to be explained on the ground that it is due to the conduct of the respondent, namely, his illicit relations with one Sarabjit Kaur, that the appellant was forced to leave the matrimonial home. The name, parentage or address of said Sarabjit Kaur was not mentioned in the written statement though her name is mentioned in the cross-examination of the appellant RW1. The appellant has failed to lead any evidence to prove illicit relations of the respondent with the said Sarabjit Kaur or any other woman. All allegations of illicit relations made by the respondent remained unsubstantiated.

PW2 Deepak Kumar, the elder son of the parties, has deposed in favour of his father. Prior to the year 2004 he was living with his mother and younger brother. He has denied allegations of ill-treatment or physical abuse of the appellant at the hands of his father. Deepak Kumar affirms that the parties had separated in the year 2002. He denied that his parents were having normal relations. Averment of the appellant that her elder son Deepak Kumar had left her and joined his father due to greed of a motor-bike or mobile or that he was involved in a theft case in which the respondent helped Deepak Kumar is not substantiated by any evidence on record. Deepak Kumar PW2 has specifically denied that he was involved in a theft case. There is no evidence to show his involvement in such a case.

It is categorically asserted by the respondent- husband that the appellant had left the matrimonial house along with his two sons on 31.7.2002 and they could be located after about a period of one and a half month thereto. The appellant had reported his wife and children to be missing as is apparent from Ex.P2. Various complaints were submitted by the appellant against him. Filing of such complaints is admitted by the appellant. The appellant has admitted that she filed various complaints against the respondent before his superior officers also. The allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent or his family members are not supported by an iota of evidence on record. The appellant’s own testimony to the effect that there was no one in her parental family, thus the demand for dowry raised by her husband and in-laws could not be fulfilled, falsifies her stand for the simple reason that the question of demand of dowry does not arise in such a situation. Furthermore, the appellant categorically states that she was never beaten by the respondent on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry. The argument on behalf of the appellant that no effort was made by the husband to resettle her along with the children or that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause for withdrawing from the matrimonial home is not borne out from the record. Appellant-Kavita RW1 in her cross-examination has specifically deposed that she does not want to live with her husband. This statement coupled with the admitted fact that the appellant had left her matrimonial home on 31.7.2002, clearly proves the animus of desertion on her part. There is nothing on record to prove that she was turned out of her matrimonial home. The parties have been living separately since the year 2002. The appellant has failed to prove any reason or cause much less sufficient or a reasonable cause to have withdrawn from the company of the respondent husband. Thus, the respondent-husband is entitled to a decree of divorce and we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula.

Krishan Kumar-appellant in FAO No.M-361 of 2013 is aggrieved by the enhancement of maintenance from 3,000/- to 10,000/- awarded to the respondent- wife vide order dated 18.9.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula. Maintenance at the rate of 3,000/- per month was awarded to Smt. Kavita under Section 25 of the Act vide order dated 15.4.2008 after marriage between the parties was dissolved on 17.12.2007. An application was moved by Kavita for enhancement of this amount to 15,000/- as Krishan Kumar’s salary had increased to 24,782/- per month from 13,668/- per month. Furthermore, expenses incurred by her had also increased. Learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, while taking into account the fact that the gross salary of the husband was 36,475/- per month as per the salary slip placed on record, awarded a sum of 10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Krishan Kumar submits that the maintenance pendente-lite under Section 24 of the Act was fixed at 4,000/- per month in FAO No. M-66 of 2008. There is no justification for enhancement of the maintenance/alimony to 10,000/- per month. The appellant has to maintain himself, his aged mother and an unmarried son. He also has to provide financial support to his younger sister, who is a widow, along with her three minor children. Such an enhancement could not have been made once permanent alimony and maintenance was fixed vide order dated 15.4.2008.

Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, on the other hand, submits that keeping in view the salary drawn by the appellant and the expenses which are incurred by the respondent-wife, the amount of 10,000/- is not a princely amount which calls for any reduction in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the file, we do not find any infirmity in the grant of 10,000/- per month to the respondent- wife under Section 25 of the Act. Section 25(2) of the Act specifically provides that, “If the Court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub- section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.” Therefore, the argument in respect to maintainability of the petition is rejected being untenable. It is apparent that the husband was getting a salary of 13,668/- per month when maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month was fixed. Admittedly the gross salary of the husband was 36,475/- in August 2013 and cost of living has increased as well, thus the learned trial Court has committed no error in increasing the amount to be paid to the wife to 10,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband is unable to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree calling for a reduction in the amount awarded.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the FAO Nos. M-66 of 2008 (O&M) and M-361 of 2013 [ 13 ] appeals i.e. FAO No. M-66 of 2008 and FAO No. M-361 of 2013 are dismissed with no order as to costs.

( RAJIVE BHALLA ) ( LISA GILL )
JUDGE JUDGE

Feb. 26, 2016

rupi

Divorce 42 years after marriage. Wife seeks 1.5crore from 75 yr old hubby while she has crores. Bangalore HC

Divorce granted 42 years after marriage. Wife seeks 1.5crore from 75 yr old hubby while she has crores in shares and property. Classic Bangalore HC divorce case which husband WINS on grounds of cruelty and desertion by wife !!

In this sad case, a 75 year old man in his advanced age is fighting against his wife’s appeal (at HC) seeking 1.5 crores as permanent alimony. There are claims and counter claims, but it is on record that (a) wife has filed (MC) cases alleging that husband had illicit relations with his own employee and (b) she has made a suicide attempt and had to be hospitalised after consuming huge dose of sleeping tablets. Husband also alleges that she was the cause of his business failure. Wife cross-alleges husband sold his ancestral house and took away part of the proceeds, but the wife is not convincing in her cross examination replies as well, leading the Hon HC to doubt her claims of living under one roof with this husband (i.e.) thus accepting husband’s claim of desertion. Finally the Hon Bangalore HC confirms the divorce and directs her to approach lower court for maintenance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

PRESENT

      THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N K PATIL
AND
      THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA

MFA No.10709/2011 (FC)

BETWEEN

Rupa Mahajan
W/o Satish Mahajan
Aged 57 years
Presenty Residing at
No.011, ‘B’ Block
Sterling park Apartments
Kodigehalli Main Road
Sanjeevinagar
Bangalore-560 092.                     ….Appellant
(By Sri.S.S.Ramdas, Senior Advocate for M/s. Sundara swamy & Ramdas Associates)

AND

Satish Mahajan
S/o Late D.R.Mahajan
Aged 67 years
Residing at
No.603 B St Johns Woods Apartments
80St John Cross Road
Bangalore-560 029.                …Respondent
(By Sri.J.Kanikaraj, Advocate)

This Appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of Family Courts Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2011 passed in M.C.No.1933/2008 on the file of 4th Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bangalore, allowing the petition filed under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce and rejecting the prayer filed under Section 3.

This Appeal having been heard and reserved for Judgment on 05th February 2016, coming on for pronouncement of Judgment this day, S.Sujatha J., delivered the following

JUDGMENT

  1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2011 passed by the 4th Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C.No.1933/2008, allowing the petition filed by the respondent for dissolution of marriage.
  2. The facts in brief are:- that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized as per Hindu Rites on 18.01.1974 at Chennai. It transpires that after their marriage, the respondent and appellant lived at No.58, Cunningham Road, Bangalore happily for a period of 16 years upto 1990. Their marriage was consummated and the couple were blessed with twins (sons) named Gaurav and Vaibhav in the year 1980. It is stated that both the appellant and respondent jointly purchased a land situated at No.328, 5th Main, 1st Block, Koramangala in the year 1990 and after constructing a house on the said land, they shifted their residence to the newly built house in 1990 and were residing therein. When the relationship between the parties was amicable, respondent along with his brother for the purpose of running a business, floated a company in the name of M/s Garments International Pvt. Ltd. Respondent along with his brother were the directors of the said company. However, subsequently, appellant, Gaurav and Vaibhav (sons) were inducted as Directors in the years 1990, 1998 and 2000 respectively. Due to the differences that developed between the appellant and respondent, the respondent filed M.C.No.1933/2008 before the 4th Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (1a) and 13(1b) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the ‘Act’ for short). Appellant contested the matter. After considering the evidence placed by the parties, the Family Court allowed the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act and rejected the petition under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, the appellant is before this Court.
  3. Heard Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ramdas for appellant as well as Sri.Kanikraj for respondent. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  4. The learned counsel for appearing for the appellant would contend that the Family Court failed to consider the evidence on record in a right perspective. Appellant herein had placed Exhibits R.1 to R.17 but the Family Court, ignoring the said documentary evidence has wrongly held that no appropriate evidence was placed by the appellant herein to discard the evidence of the respondent. The Family Court has not appreciated the true nature of cruelty and desertion alleged by the respondent to claim the decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act. Though the ground of mental disorder is held to be not proved, granting the decree of divorce to a marriage which subsisted for more than 33 years is totally unjustifiable and contrary to the well established principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court.
  5. It is submitted that the petition filed by the appellant seeking decree of divorce against the respondent in M.C.No.1325/1999, was only with an intention to draw the attention of the respondent towards her, in view of the assurances made by the respondent to take good care of her, the petition was unconditionally withdrawn in the year 2000 and pursuant to which both the parties lived together as husband and wife. The subsequent events which transpired pursuant to withdrawal of the petition MC.No.1325/1999 having been completely overlooked by the Family Court, proceeded to hold that the act of the appellant in filing M.C.No.1325/1999 against the respondent seeking decree of divorce, amounted to cruelty.
  6. It is further submitted that though initially, the company M/s Garments International Pvt. Ltd. was floated by the respondent for the purpose of running a business in exporting garments, the appellant and children were inducted as directors in the company who held their proportionate share in the company. The respondent without any reason borrowed huge amounts from banks, financial institutions and also from private parties which resulted in financial instability affecting the entire family. In order to have a hold in the financial transactions of the company, the appellant along with her children was constrained to interfere with the company’s financial affairs. Such action of the appellants was indeed in the interest of the family and to safeguard and protect the company’s interest which cannot be termed as mental cruelty against the respondent. The trial Court overlooking the rationale behind such acts, wrongly held such acts of the appellant has caused mental agony to the respondent.
  7. It is further submitted that the submission of the respondent that the parties lived separately since November 1999 is totally against the documents placed on record by the appellant. The appellant having led a happy marital life with the respondent for more than 33 years, had no intention to desert the respondent. Exhibits R1 to R17 placed on record proves that the appellant resided with the respondent. The respondent has not taken any interest in the family. The appellant alone out of her savings performed the marriage of their sons and the respondent had no courtesy even to participate in the marriage ceremonial functions. It is in fact, the respondent who has deserted the appellant and the family and not the appellant. The matrimonial house at Koramangala, Bangalore which was owned jointly by the parties was sold in the year 2007 for a consideration of Rs.3,52,00,000/- out of which only a meager sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid to the appellant and Rs.11,00,000/- to each of their children. No cogent evidence is placed on record by the respondent to establish the factum of desertion as claimed. The allegations made against the appellant that she is suffering from mental disorder is an act of the respondent to bring the institution of marriage to an end and to ruin the entire life of the appellant. Such a false allegation of mental disorder made by the respondent ipso facto proves the cruelty made by the husband towards the wife. No appeal is filed by the respondent on the dismissal of the petition under this ground. No desertion as required under the Act is proved by the respondent. In such circumstances, the Family Court allowing the petition filed by the respondent and granting a decree of divorce is totally unsustainable and seeks to set- aside the said judgment and decree of the Family Court.
  8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/wife has filed an application I.A.I/2015 seeking for maintenance in a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month from January 2007 till date and for future periods during the appellant’s life time or in the alternative to direct the respondent to pay the appellant permanent alimony in a sum of Rs.1.50 crores in the interest of justice. Placing arguments on this application filed under Section 25 of the Act, learned counsel would submit that during 2005 the mother-in-law of the appellant Smt.Leela Mahajan gifted her late husband’s house bearing No,58, Cunningham Road to the respondent. Immediately after receiving the gift the respondent negotiated to sell the said house and sold for about 2.25 crores. Thereafter, respondent had formed a private trust by name Satish Mahajan Family Welfare Trust, purchased an apartment in Prestige St.John’s wood Koramangala. A sum of Rs.60,00,000/- was paid for the purchase of the said apartment from out of the said sale proceeds of Cunningham Cross Road house. The balance of nearly Rs.1.65 crores is unaccounted and untraceable. The respondent though floated Satish Mahajan Family Welfare Trust for the benefit of the sons of the parties, till date no benefit has been extended despite the trust having money and securities in multiple crores, in ING Vysya Bank now known as Kotak Mahendra Bank, Koramangala, Bangalore. The respondent being a prudent businessman hailing from a business family, being in business for nearly 45 years and being a promoter/partner in Mahajan Borewell Company – a renowned borewell drilling Company in Karnataka, cannot now plead that he has married the second wife who is a doctor at St.John’s Hospital at Koramangala and is living on her money. The respondent has failed to discharge the responsibilities of a husband and as a father to his children. He has also not participated in any manner in the marriages of their sons Vaibhav’s in 2007 and Gaurav’s in 2013. The respondent has the benefit of nearly Rs.4.45crores being the balance from the sale of two houses, right form 2005 to 2007, till date. The respondent has earned interest and income from the said money for all these years.
  9. It is further submitted that the appellant is completely dependent on her dividend income accruing from the shares and securities amounting to Rs.12.00 lakhs as evident from the income tax returns and she has no other source of income. It is also submitted that with all the hope of getting re- united with the respondent, no maintenance application was filed during the petition proceedings. It is only after realizing that the respondent has contracted second marriage the application is filed in appeal proceedings. Accordingly, seeks to allow the application and to direct the respondent to make the payment towards the maintenance as claimed.
  10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following Judgments: (1) Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli ((2006) 4 SCC 558) (2) A.Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur ((2005) 2 SCC (3) Savitri Pandey vs.Prem Chandra Pandey (AIR 2002 SC 591) (4) Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh ((2007) 4 SCC 511)
  11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent justifies the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court and contends that the appellant filing M.C.No.1325/1999, seeking for divorce against the respondent making false allegations that the respondent had an affair with Smt.Geetha Srinivasan, an employee of M/s Garments International Company, had lowered the status of the respondent in the society besides causing mental trauma and agony. Such wild allegations made against the respondent were baseless.
  12. Further, the appellant interfering with the financial matters of the company, fabricating a resolution and freezing the bank accounts has caused financial instability to the business as well as to the family. The respondent was mainly engaged in the export business, due to the inconvenience caused by the appellant in sabotaging the business, in order to honour the agreements/contracts entered into between the foreign buyers within the time frame, the consignments were air-lifted. Such an action has caused huge loss in his business. The entire family properties came to be sold to make the payment of loan raised towards the business commitments. The indifferent attitude of the appellant, in ruining the respondent mentally and financially amounts to cruelty which has been rightly considered by the Family Court. The appellant has left the matrimonial home in November 1999. She returned back in the year 2000 and stayed with the respondent only for 2-3 days. At that time, she consumed 235 sleeping tablets and attempted to commit suicide in the matrimonial home. Noticing the same, the respondent rushed her to St.John’s Medical Hospital, Bangalore and provided her the medical treatment. Immediately after discharge from the hospital, she left the matrimonial home and started residing at Jalandhar at her parental house. The appellant had obtained a separate phone number 9888854456 at Jalandhar which proves that she had deserted the respondent from November 1999. The desertion is further proved by the action of the appellant purchasing the flat in the year 2002 at Bangalore whereby she had the intention to stay away from the respondent separately. The dividend warrants showing the address of the appellant with the Koramangala address would not establish the factum of residence of the appellant with the respondent. It is known fact that unless the change of address is made with the companies holding the shares, the dividend vouchers would be sent to the address available on the company’s register. In fact, the appellant was collecting the dividend warrants from one of their son’s or through servants. Since November 1999, the respondent and petitioner have not lived together under one roof as husband and wife. It is submitted that after the grant of decree of divorce by the Family Court on 30.6.2011, the respondent contracted the second marriage on 10.11.2011 and that the said marriage is registered on 13.02.2012, he has been living with his wife ever since then. On this ground alone, the judgment and decree of the Family Court is not liable to be disturbed.
  13. The respondent himself being advanced in age, presently aged about 75 years, has no avocation nor any source of income and is fully dependent on his wife who is a qualified medical practitioner, having source of income from her practice. During the subsistence of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, the site at Koramangala was purchased in the joint name of the appellant and respondent out of his own funds, there being no financial participation by the respondent in the purchase of construction. Due to the action of the appellant of forging and fabricating a board resolution, removing the respondent as Managing Director of the Company and withdrawing all banking powers of the Company, the Company which was financially sound and flourishing in the Garment export trade, suddenly suffered losses as export shipment could not be made within the stipulated time resulting in huge forfeiture for non performance by the export council and loss of credibility in the market with the suppliers, bankers and workers, over all image of the company was totally ruined. In order to set-right the things, the respondent was constrained to move the City Civil Court and succeeded in bringing restraining orders and got the Board resolution stayed and tried to salvage the Company’s business, despite which the Company could not survive. Out of the sale proceeds of the house at Koramangala, Rs.50.00 lakh was paid to the appellant and Rs.11.00 lakh each to the children and from the balance amount, bank liability was cleared, no amount was left in the hands of the respondent. After discharging the liabilities, the respondent was himself reduced to penury with no amount left with him nor having independent source of income. Even regarding the gift made by the respondent’s mother with respect to a house on Cunningham Road, Bangalore, the said property being attached for auction and proclamation notices were issued on various bank loans availed by Mr.Ashok Mahajan with their mother as a co-obligant, in order to prevent the creditors from auctioning the same, the said property was sold to discharge the loans who had funded payment to the debtor banks of Mahajan Borewell Company. From the remaining amount, respondent purchased a Two BHK Flat and is residing there with his mother.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  14. The appellant owns the flat valued about Rs.70.00 lakhs apart from holding shares valued about Rs.1.18 crores and liquid cash in the form of deposits. As such, there is no dearth of money for the appellant and she is living in luxury. No such plea being made by the appellant before the trial Court for maintenance, the application filed in the appeal proceedings is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is contended that the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is after considering the material evidence available on record. The respondent has proved the ingredients of Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Act. Appreciating the same, the Family Court has granted a decree of divorce which does not call for any interference at this stage. Accordingly, respondent seeks to dismiss the appeal and the application filed by the wife for maintenance/permanent alimony filed under Section 25 of the Act.
  15. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the material on record. The respondent has filed the petition before the Family Court under Section 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)(i-b) and 13(1)(iii) of the Act seeking a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage solemnized between the parties on 18.01.1974. Family Court though dismissed the petition on the ground of mental disorder i.e., under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act, allowed the petition under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Act. The Family Court after considering the pleadings of the parties has framed five issues. The respondent himself was examined as PW1 and marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.8. Appellant is examined as RW1 and marked exhibits R.1 to R.17. The main grounds urged by the respondent to prove the cruelty are: (1) Filing of M.C.No.1331/1999 by the appellant seeking decree of divorce against the respondent and making false allegations against the respondent of having an affair with Smt.Geetha Srinivasan – an employee of the Company. (2) Fabricating the resolution of the Company and freezing the bank accounts by which the respondent was constrained to obtain an interim injunction against the appellant before the city Civil Court which affected the business of the respondent in its entirety, causing financial loss and damage to the reputation of the company as well as to the respondent. In the result, the respondent was finally forced to shut down the business.
  16. We have examined the evidence available on record. It is seen from the records, that on the allegation that the respondent had some relationship with an employee of the Company i.e., Smt. Geetha Srinivasan, M.C. petition was filed by the respondent seeking for decree of divorce. No-doubt the same was withdrawn by the petitioner on 27.03.2000, such an act of the respondent, filing of the petition for divorce indicates the intention of the appellant to dissolve the marriage. Indeed it is contended by the appellant that subsequent to the withdrawal of the petition, both the parties lived together as husband and wife under one roof which is categorically denied by the respondent. Exs.R.1 to R.16 are relating to the year 2000 to 2004. Ex.R.17 is the copy of the sale deed dated 18.01.2007. The address of the parties shown in the said sale deed is 720,2nd “B” Main, 2nd B” Cross, 8th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore. In the cross examination of R.W.1 – the witness has deposed that she does not remember, the number of rooms and floors of the said property and it is admitted that the said house described in Ex.R.17 is the rented house and she does not remember when that house was taken for rent and how many years she stayed with her husband in the said house. The said evidence available on record indicates that the respondent is not having the correct picture of the house in which she claims to have resided with her husband – appellant in the year 2007. It is further deposed by RW.1 that she cannot remember the address given in the passport as well as Driving Licence , whether it relates to the Flat at Kodigehalli. It is also deposed that she does not remember the address shown in the passbook relating to her Account in State Bank of Mysore, Sahakarnagar. Hence, no credence would be given to this document – Ex.R.17 to accept the contention of the respondent that the parties lived together till 2007. As already discussed Exs.R.1 to R.7 are the dividend warrants of different Companies. These documents do not prove that the parties were residing together as husband and wife after November 1999. Hence, desertion of statutory period of 2 years before filing of the petition as contemplated under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act is proved by the appellant. It is strongly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that this material evidence which discloses that the appellant was residing with her husband at the matrimonial house was totally ignored by the Family Court. Generally, dividends are sent to the address of the share holders, as maintained in the Register of the company, unless the change of address is incorporated in the Register. It is the case of the respondent that Exhibits P-4 to 8, unopened covers of dividends remained with him which indicates that the appellant was not residing with him after November 1999. It may be true that after the withdrawal of the M.C. petition filed by the appellant, there was a long gap in filing the petition by the husband alleging cruelty, desertion and mental disorder. However, it cannot be ruled out that the respondent was subjected to cruelty in view of the alleged allegations of having relationship with an employee of the company and the M.C. petition filed on that ground. Interference of the appellant in the financial affairs of the Company by passing a fabricated resolution and freezing the bank accounts may be even to safeguard the interest of the family and the Company as narrated by the appellant but however, the said interference has caused damage to the business and the reputation of the Company resulting in financial loss to the Company and causing mental agony to the respondent which cannot be brushed aside and no cogent evidence is led by the appellant to discard the evidence of the respondent in this regard. The impact of these two incidents are suffice to establish the cruelty.
  17. The submission of the appellant that the husband has not participated even in the marriage functions of their children, in any manner would indicate the grave and serious nature of strained relationship between the appellant and the respondent. This would be indicative of the fact that now the parties have no emotions, sentiments or feelings for each other. This is not an ordinary case of wear and tear of married life but a clear case of irretrievable break down of marriage. The word ‘cruelty’ though not defined under the Act is well interpreted by the Courts from time to time. It is often cautioned by the Apex Court that no Court should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of ‘mental cruelty’ in which all kinds of cases of ‘mental cruelty’ can be covered.
  18. The Apex Court in the case of Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105 has held Thus:
    • ” To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “gave and weighty” so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”. Conduct has to be considered in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce.”
  19. The Apex Court in A. Jayachandra (supra) has held thus:
    • “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 willful 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 his 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 delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, a 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 out, 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.
    • 11. The expression ‘cruelty’ has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other.
    • 12. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted (See Sobh Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121).
    • 13. The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse’s conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent.
  20. In the case of Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kholi (supra) the Apex Court observed as under: 
    • “74. We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised 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.
    • 75. Public interest demands not only that the married status should, as far as possible, as long as possible, and whenever possible, be maintained, but where a marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest lies in the recognition of that fact.  76. Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist.
    • 77.   Some     jurists  have     also expressed     their   apprehension     for  introduction of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for grant of the decree of divorce. In their opinion, such an amendment in the Act would put human ingenuity at a premium and throw wide open the doors to litigation, and will create more problems then are sought to be solved.
    • 78. The other majority view, which is shared by most jurists, according to the Law Commission Report, is that human life has a short span and situations causing misery cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. A halt has to be called at some stage. Law cannot turn a blind eye to such situations, nor can it decline to give adequate response to the necessities arising  therefrom.
    • 79. When we carefully evaluate the judgment of the High Court and scrutinize its findings in the background of the facts and circumstances of this case, it becomes obvious that the approach adopted by the High Court in deciding this matter is far from satisfactory.”
  21. Applying the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court as discussed above, we have analyzed the case on hand in the backdrop of the facts of cruelty alleged by the respondent and denied by the appellant. It is well settled that the concept of ‘cruelty’ differs from person to person depending on various factors like geographical and cultural background, education, customs, religion, traditions, values etc.
  22. It is true that ‘cruelty’ said to have been experienced by a person cannot be viewed in the same perspective at all times. It has also come on record that the appellant attempted to commit suicide by consuming 235 sleeping tablets in the matrimonial home in the year 2000 and was provided with medical treatment at St. John’s Hospital, Bengaluru, by the respondent. These are all admitted facts which creates apprehension of leading a cordial martial life together. In our opinion, it is not significant to save the marriage when the relationship between the parties is strained, rupturing matrimonial bond beyond repair as the respondent has contracted second marriage. Even on the ground of desertion, it is well established principle that mere desertion would not be a ground for divorce unless two important ingredients, namely, [a] factum of desertion, [b] animus deserendi – intention to desert the spouse; to bring an end to cohabitation or marital life are proved.
  23. The Apex Court in the case of Savitri Pandey [supra] has held thus:
    • “7A. “Desertion”, for the purpose of seeking divorce under the Act, means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other’s consent and without reasonable cause. In other words it is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things. Desertion, therefore, means withdrawing from the matrimonial obligations, i.e., not permitting or allowing and facilitating the cohabitation between the parties. The proof of desertion has to be considered by taking into consideration the concept of marriage which in law legalises the sexual relationship between man and woman in the society for the perpetuation of race, permitting lawful indulgence in passion to prevent licentiousness and for procreation of children. Desertion is not a single act complete in itself, it is a continuous course of conduct to be determined under the facts and circumstances of each case.”
  24. It is the specific contention of the appellant that till the year 2007, the parties resided together and as such statutory period of desertion is not proved. As discussed earlier, it is not so. Even assuming for a moment, if we accept the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant that no desertion is proved, no purpose would be served in keeping this marriage alive which has already become a dead wood, in view of the subsequent development, the respondent having contracted the second marriage on 10.11.2011 and the same being registered on 13.02.2012 before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar.
  25. As regards the application filed by the appellant seeking maintenance/permanent alimony, both the parties have made allegations and counter allegations against each other. Our best efforts made to see that the matter gets amicably settled between the parties, has not yielded any positive results. Contracting a second marriage, after waiting period, would not absolve the husband from paying the permanent alimony and maintenance to the wife in terms of Section 25 of the Act.
  26. Section 25[1] of the Act contemplates that any court exercising jurisdiction under the Act may at the time of passing of any decree or at any time subsequent to the application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband order for maintenance or support of either of the spouse depending on the income and other property of the applicant and the respondent and other circumstances of the case.
  27. Admittedly, the appellant herein has filed application under Section 25 of the Act in this appeal proceedings before this Court. The appellant is alleging that the respondent has not taken any interest in the family and not discharged his responsibilities as dutiful husband. It is averred that the respondent owns the properties and huge amount of liquid cash besides the fixed deposits in various banks whereas the respondent has filed affidavit denying the same and he contends that he has no source of income and that at this advanced age, he is depending on the income of his second wife. This complex issue of facts requires to be decided on the established evidence, regarding status and income of the parties. In the appeal proceedings, the entitlement and quantum of maintenance cannot be decided unless any cogent evidence is available on record. Hence, we are not inclined to adjudicate on the application IA No.1/2015 filed by the appellant seeking for maintenance/permanent alimony.
  28. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal and IA No.1/2015 stands dismissed. Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court in M.C.No.1933/2008 dated 30.06.2011 is confirmed.
  29. It is made clear that dismissing of this appeal or application for maintenance/permanent alimony shall not come in the way of the appellant to move the appropriate application before the jurisdictional Court, if advised.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE Brn, AN/-

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

Wife allegs dowry, adultry & beatng. Stil FC & HC grant divorc due 2 desertion by wife! Madras HC clasic

…In the meanwhile smart husband has re married and has only THREE KIDS from next marriage !!!. …..

In this classic case, considering the long separation and disappearance of emotional bonds, both the Family court and HC grant Divorce to the husband (FC smartly claims wife’s desertion is the grounds) . Wife appeals to the HC and claims she was beaten, she was thrown out of the house etc. She points out that the husband has re-married and has children from the second wife!! Ostensibly this husband has NOT paid a penny maintenance as well… Still HC does NOT reverse the divorce that is granted !! smart husband does NOT even appear for the appeal @ HC !!


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.08.2015

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

C.M.A.No.1679 of 2015

Nallagatla Sukanya @ Chinnamma … Appellant

Vs.

1. Nallagatla Nagesh,
S/o.Ramiah, aged 33 years,
Office Assistant,
Anchor Gate Building,
Port Trust, Chennai 600 001.

2. Guntupalli Balaih
Timmareddypalem Village,
Lingasamudram Mandal,
Prakasam District, Andra Pradesh. … Respondents

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, against the fair and decreetal order, passed in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, dated 02.08.2011, on the file of the Principal Family Court at Chennai.

For Appellant : Ms.A.Veeramarthini

For 1st Respondent : No appearance

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J.)

  1. The Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife has preferred the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, as against the order, dated 02.08.2011, in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, passed by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  2. The Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, while passing the impugned order in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000 (on 02.08.2011), filed by the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband, had inter alia observed as follows: “…12. In the instant case, both the parties have been living separately for the past 19 years and all the efforts of amicable settlement have failed. Time has taken its toll in as much as it has indisputably contributed to uncomenting factor. There has been total disappearance of emotional substratum in the marriage and in that event nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage which in fact has ceased to exist. Therefore in view of the aforesaid reasoning, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. and resultantly, allowed the petition, by granting the relief of Divorce, on the ground of ‘Desertion’.
  3. As regards the grounds of cruelty and adultery, the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, came to a conclusion that the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband was not entitled to the relief of divorce. Added further, the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, had opined that the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife had left the matrimonial home, without any reasonable cause.
  4. Feeling aggrieved against the order, dated 02.08.2011, in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, passed by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife has focused the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, primarily on the grounds that the trial Court had failed to observe that the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife had not deserted the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband. On the contrary, the 1st Respondent-Husband (Petitioner) demanded dowry and on failure to comply with, he forced her to send her to her parent’s home.
  5. Learned counsel for the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife urges before this Court that the trial Court had failed to take note of the important aspect, viz., the 1st Respondent/Petitioner(Husband) had married one Rajeswari, after deserting the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife and through the said Rajeswari, he has three children and living with her.
  6. Apart from the above, Learned Counsel for the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife would vehemently contend that the Appellant had taken several steps, including by filing a complaint before the Police for re-union, as seen from Ex.R1 and due to non-cooperation of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband, the matter proved futile.
  7. Continuing further, it is also represented by the Learned counsel for the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife that the Appellant-Wife has been living separately, only because of the attitude of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband, who deserted her and therefore, she has no other option to lead and live separately.
  8. The Learned counsel for the Appellant proceeds to project an argument that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence of RW.1 (Appellant), to the effect that the 1st Respondent/Husband had beat her mercilessly on 01.01.1992 and she was bleeding profusely. Also that, on the same day, she was forcefully taken in a cycle rickshaw to Korukkupet Railway Station at 10.20 P.M., boarded with Mother-in-Law, Bolamma, Baleswari, Eswaramma, Sister-in-Law and when the train reached Singarayakonda Station at 10.30 A.M., they had left her alone, without ticket and she herself boarded the bus to to go over her parent’s house.
  9. The last submission made, on behalf of the Appellant, is that the trial Court had failed to note that the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife was perforced to file a case for maintenance in M.C.No.1 of 1997, on the file of the Learned Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Kandukur and a maintenance of Rs.300/- per month, was awarded in her favour, but the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband had failed to comply with the said order.
  10. It is to be noted that the marriage between the 1st Respondent/Petitioner (Husband) and the Appellant/1st Respondent (Wife) took place on 13.10.1988 at Old Washermanpet, Chennai, according to Christian Rites and Customs. Admittedly, no child was born to the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife, through the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband.
  11. The stand of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband before the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, was that the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife had an illicit relationship with the 2nd Respondent in the Original Petition, viz., Gunallapalli Balaih, who is the son of the maternal aunt. Also that, he was shocked to witness the illicit relationship between the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent herein and both were caught red handed, during the course of illicit intimacy, etc. Furthermore, the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife left the matrimonial home, on her own volition on 10.01.1992, deserting the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband.
  12. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband was perforced to file F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, on the file of the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. Before the Family Court, the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife had filed a detailed counter/statement of objections, denying the averments/stand taken by the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband.
  13. That apart, the Appellant/1st Respondent (Wife) had projected a case, as if, she was beaten by her Husband, viz., 1st Respondent/Petitioner (Husband), on 01.01.1992 and forcefully taken her to Korukkupet Railway Station at 10.20 P.M., etc. The Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife, in her counter/objections, had categorically denied the allegations of her illicit intimacy with the 2nd Respondent herein, Gunallapalli Balaih and she came out with a plea that she never had any illicit intimacy with the said Gunallapalli Balaih and never deserted the 1st Respondent/Petitioner (Husband), as claimed by him.
  14. Before the trial Court, the Husband, viz., 1st Respondent/Petitioner was examined as PW.1 and on his behalf, another witness, PW.2, was examined. On behalf of the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife, witnesses, Rws.1 and 2, were examined. Besides, on the side of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband, Exs.P1 and P2 marked. On the side of the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife, Ex.R1 was marked.
  15. The trial Court, on a careful consideration of the entire facts and attendant circumstances of the case, in an encircling fashion and after going through the available materials on record, had resultantly held that the 1st Respondent/Petitioner-Husband was not entitled to divorce, on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. But the trial Court had given a categorical finding that the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife had left the matrimonial home, without any sufficient/reasonable cause. Insofar as relief of divorce was concerned, the trial Court had granted the relief of divorce, mainly on the ground of desertion, made by the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife. As such the trial Court had allowed F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, to the extent, as indicated supra. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  16. This Court had carefully heard the arguments of the Learned counsel for the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife and also perused the order of the trial Court in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, dated 02.08.2011.
  17. On going through the contents of the order, passed by the trial Court in F.C.O.P.No.1281 of 2000, dated 02.08.2011, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court had dealt with the matter in an elaborate manner and deliberated upon the rival contentions of the parties, in a meticulous and careful fashion and ultimately allowed the petition, only on the ground of desertion. However, it dismissed the petition, for divorce filed by the 1st Respondent/Husband, on the ground of cruelty and adultery.
  18. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the trial Court, in allowing the Original Petition. In fact, this Court is not in a position to take a different view in Appeal, than the one taken by the trial Court. As such, this Court held that the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the Appellant/1st Respondent-Wife, is devoid of merits.
  19. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

AND M. VENUGOPAL, J.

skm

(S.M.K., J.) (M.V., J.)

10.08.2015

Index: Yes/No

Internet: Yes/No

skm

To The Principal Family Court, Chennai.

C.M.A.No.1679 of 2015

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************