पत्नी से विवाद के कारण ASI ने लगाई फांसी, छोड़ा 4 पेज का सुसाइड नोट
Published: by Rashmi Shrivastava
Long Press here to Share
जांजगीर-चाम्पा। पारिवारिक विवाद के चलते शुक्रवार को एसपी कार्यलय में पदस्थ एएसआई उमेश भारद्वाज ने घर में पंखे पर लटककर खुदखुशी कर ली। खुदकुशी करने से पहले मृत एएसआई ने दोस्तों को सुसाइड मैसेज भेजा था।
— Read on m.inhnews.in/Janjgir-Champa/news/attempt-theft-bank-10340
“….The various letters and complaints written by the respondent against her husband before the authorities wherein the husband was working, ridiculing him among the officials, friends and relatives is well evident from the oral evidence tendered by PW2 to PW14 and Exhibits A1 to A38. Ridiculing the husband among his close friends, relatives and also before the officials wherein he was working and challenging his dignity amounts to #cruelty in all means…
…The #pain and #suffering meted out by the petitioner on registration of a crime against him by the concerned #police can very well discern from the fact that it was registered while he was at the age of 70 years. He was not #permitted to participate in the #marriage of his one and the #only #daughter, PW7. He has been #ridiculed before his #officials, friends and relatives is well evident from the various complaints and letters issued at various occasions. The extent of cruelty is well evident from the nature of #wild #allegations #levelled against him in those complaints and letters…..” : Hon Kerala HC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1940
Mat.Appeal.No. 360 of 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06-03-2013 IN OPNO.134/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR
S/O. KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR,
ELAYAVOOR AMSOM DESOM,
P.O. MUNDAYAD, KANNUR – 670 597.
BY SRI. V.V.PRABHAKARAN
D/O.LATE T.K.G. NAMBIAR,
KANNAPURAM AMSOM DESOM,
P.O. MOTTAMMAL, KANNUR – 670 331.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.6.2018,
THE COURT ON 01-08-2018, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P. SOMARAJAN, JJ.
Mat. Appeal No. 360 of 2013
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2018
J U D G M E N T
P. Somarajan, J.
- Against the order dated 06.03.2013 in O.P.No.134/2006 of the Family Court, Kannur, the husband came up with this appeal aggrieved by the order refusing to grant divorce of the marriage.
- 2. The marriage was solemnized as early as on 13.05.1973. There are four issues in the wedlock. Since 1995, they are residing separately and the petition for divorce was filed in the year 2006 alleging cruelty. The Family Court on consideration of evidence and on hearing the parties found that there is no sufficient ground for granting divorce and consequently the application was dismissed, against which this appeal is preferred.
- 3. The original petition was submitted by the petitioner after a long cohabitation with his wife, the respondent herein, more specifically after the expiry of more than 22 years. This would prima facie cast a duty on the court to examine the ground alleged for divorce with its all details so as to find out the existence of elements of cruelty and whether it is sufficient to bring the relationship to an end. The petitioner had given oral evidence as PW1. PW2 to PW14 were examined in support of his case besides the marking of Exhibits A1 to A38. All these persons were examined along with the relevant documents in order to show the misbehaviour of the respondent towards her husband, the petitioner herein, and that he was subjected to continuous mental cruelty challenging his dignity among his friends, relatives, subordinate officers and higher officials. There is no much dispute that the husband/petitioner is living separately from the respondent/wife right from the year 1995. The wife is aged 60 and the petitioner is aged 70 years. There are four issues in the wedlock. They were living as husband and wife for a long period of more than 22 years. It is an admitted case of the respondent that she had preferred a complaint against her husband alleging offence under Section 498A IPC, that too in the year 2003, and a crime was registered as Crime No.379/2003 of Kannapuram Police Station. Subsequently the case was, according to the respondent, settled out of court and herself and her children had given evidence hostile to the prosecution. This would be a factor requires serious consideration as to why they have turned hostile to the criminal case initiated at their instance and whether it was a pressurizing tactics played on the petitioner who was aged more than 70 years. The intention to subject the petitioner with mental cruelty is well evident.
- 4. Admittedly the petitioner who is the father of PW7, was not invited for the marriage of PW7, though PW7 is the only daughter born in the wedlock. The reason advanced by the respondent that by that time he had filed a divorce O.P. against the respondent and hence cannot find any fault with her, is seemed to be so strange. The marriage of PW7 was conducted without inviting her father, the petitioner herein. Whether the relationship in between the father and mother became strained is not at all a ground for excluding the father from attending the marriage of his only daughter.
- 5. Exhibit A29 letter written by the respondent on 30.09.2003 is self explanatory with respect to the cruelty meted out by the petitioner from his wife. The filthy language used against her mother-in-law and the various wild allegations made against him would prima facie show the way in which he was treated by his wife, the respondent herein. Scandalous allegations were raised against him in Exhibit A30 complaint submitted to the superior officer of the petitioner. The nature of scandalous allegations raised in Exhibit A30 which was submitted to the senior officer of the petitioner would amply show the cruelty and misbehaviour showered on the petitioner by his wife, the respondent. Exhibit A28 apology letter would be an admission of what she had done against her husband, the petitioner herein. Exhibits A24 and A25 would also show the misbehaviour and cruelty unleashed against the petitioner by the respondent.
- 6. The various letters and complaints written by the respondent against her husband before the authorities wherein the husband was working, ridiculing him among the officials, friends and relatives is well evident from the oral evidence tendered by PW2 to PW14 and Exhibits A1 to A38. Ridiculing the husband among his close friends, relatives and also before the officials wherein he was working and challenging his dignity amounts to cruelty in all means. Filing of a complaint against her husband alleging offence under Section 498A IPC and registration of a crime against him and the admission made by her that she herself and her children turned hostile to the prosecution resulting in acquittal of the petitioner would prima facie show the way in which he was subjected to cruelty challenging his dignity. The pain and suffering meted out by the petitioner on registration of a crime against him by the concerned police can very well discern from the fact that it was registered while he was at the age of 70 years. He was not permitted to participate in the marriage of his one and the only daughter, PW7. He has been ridiculed before his officials, friends and relatives is well evident from the various complaints and letters issued at various occasions. The extent of cruelty is well evident from the nature of wild allegations levelled against him in those complaints and letters. As discussed earlier, ridiculing the husband before his friends, officials and relatives and challenging his dignity by his wife amounts to mental cruelty having far reaching effects. This cannot be condoned on a later point of time as it will remain in the mind of the petitioner as an incurable injury. The way in which he was treated and ridiculed is further evident from the fact that a publication was made regarding the marriage of her daughter under Exhibit A10 notice which is yet another attempt to degrade the dignity of her father who was excluded from attending the marriage of his one and the only daughter. The reasons advanced by the Lower Court even by quoting a Sanskrit sloga alleged to have been borrowed from the petitioner that “wife should be minister in purpose, slave in duty, Lakshmi in appearance, Earth in patience, Mother in love and prostitute in bed” would itself show the manner in which the Lower Court misappreciated the evidence involved in the case. Submission of a compromise signed by the parties, exhibited as A32, regarding the crime registered against the petitioner will not condone the earlier act of the respondent causing registration of a criminal case under the guise of an alleged offence under Section 498A IPC against her husband who was at the age of 70 years. The cruelty meted out by the petitioner is of that nature sufficient to bring their relationship as husband and wife in an irretrievable halt and hence the petitioner is entitled to the grant of a decree of divorce of the marriage with the respondent. Hence, the judgment of the Lower Court is hereby set aside. A decree of divorce of marriage of the petitioner with the respondent with effect from the date of decree is hereby granted.
- Appeal is allowed accordingly, no costs.
P. SOMARAJAN (JUDGE)
JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.
1. This appeal has arisen from the order of the I Additional Family Court, Chennai, granting divorce in favour of the respondent husband under Sec. 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. The respondent husband sought a decree of divorce before the lower Court alleging that the marriage between himself and the appellant herein took place on 5.9.1991; that they have been living happily for a short while; that thereafter, she created problem and went over from the matrimonial house to her parents’ house; that she lodged a false complaint against him, on the basis of which a case was registered by the police for dowry harassment; that he was arrested and later, let on bail; that the criminal proceedings also went on, and thus, all along, he has been harassed by her; that because of that, he had mental cruelty, and hence, it was a fit case for granting the relief of divorce.
3. The O.P. was contested by the appellant wife stating that it is true that there was a marriage between the parties, but, she was driven away; that there was a child born; that he has not even cared to maintain her or her child; that the allegation that there was mental cruelty caused by the wife against the husband, is utterly false; that he having failed to maintain his wife and child, has come with this false case; that within a short time from the time of marriage, namely a week, there was a dowry harassment by the husband and his sister; that a complaint was lodged by her father in that regard; that pursuant to the same, a case came to be registered under Sec. 498A I.P.C., and criminal proceedings went on; that he was also found guilty in the said case by the trial Court; that the allegation now made by him is an invention; that in order to wriggle out of the marriage tie, he has filed this false case, and hence, the relief was to be denied. https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick/status/1021441313613459456
4. The trial Court recorded the evidence. On the appraisal of the entire evidence, the Court below has found that it was a fit case for divorce and accordingly, granted the relief, what is being challenged in this C.M.A.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant wife, would submit that in the criminal case, both the lower Courts have found that there was a dowry harassment; that though the judgments of the lower Courts were set aside by this Court, there was sufficient evidence let in to substantiate the dowry harassment, and apart from that, having harassed his wife by demanding dowry, he has come forward with the false case for divorce; that he has not even cared to maintain the wife and child; and that it is pertinent to note that the wife has also filed a O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights, which shows the intention of the appellant to live with him. Added further the learned Counsel that the husband has not produced any iota of evidence to show that there was any cruelty made against him; that the petition should have been dismissed by the lower Court, and hence, the order of the lower Court has got to be set aside.
6. After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and on scrutiny of the available materials, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case warranting for admission or for notice to the respondent. https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick/status/1021441313613459456
7. Admittedly, the appellant married the respondent on 5.9.1991, and out of the said wedlock, there was a male born. It is also not in dispute that she lived with him only for a short time. The only contention put forth by the appellant’s side, is that she was driven away from her matrimonial house, and thus, there was a necessity to live with her parents. On the contrary, the respondent husband came with the case of divorce stating that there was mental cruelty, exerted by her by lodging a false complaint under Sec. 498A I.P.C.; that a case came to be registered, and he was also arrested in that regard; that the same would constitute a cruelty, and hence, divorce has to be given. It is an admitted position that the appellant herein lodged a complaint against her husband, and criminal proceedings were initiated; that the said complaint was taken on file by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in C.C.No.11007 of 1992, and the trial went on. It is pertinent to point out that after the initiation of the criminal proceedings, the respondent herein was arrested, and subsequently, he was let on bail. Though the case ended in conviction, he took it on appeal in C.A.No.91 of 1998, which was taken up by the Sessions Court, Madras, which also confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on him. In such circumstances, the husband took it on revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.941 of 2000. This Court had an occasion to consider the rival submissions made and to scrutinise the materials. This Court allowed the revision case and acquitted the respondent husband. At this juncture, it has to be pointed out that on the complaint given by the appellant wife against her husband for dowry harassment, a case came to be registered by the police, and he was arrested and let on bail. He faced the trial before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Chennai in a Calendar Case, and he was convicted and sentenced. That apart, the appeal in C.A.91/98 preferred by him, has also met the same fate at the hands of the Sessions Court. Finally, he was acquitted by this Court.
8. It would be more appropriate and advantageous to reproduce the order of this Court in Crl.R.C.941 of 2000 as follows: “The facts narrated above indicate that the allegations in the complaint to P.W.8 on 26.5.92 should only be considered as an after thought and that the said complaint was given by P.W.1 only to harass the petitioners to subjugate the first petitioner to her wish to stay at Madras. I am unable to accept the prosecution version that the petitioners, joining with the other accused, made a demand for dowry.” Thus, from the wordings found in the judgment of this Court in the revision, it would be clear that it was a false complaint.
9. The case of the appellant was that there was no cruelty exerted, cannot be accepted or countenanced for the simple reason that a fase complaint was lodged against her husband, and the case came to be registered under Sec. 498AI.P.C., and criminal proceedings were initiated, and the husband was also arrested. It remains to be stated that the mental cruelty faced by the husband has to be assessed having regard to his status in his life, educational background and the environment, in which he lived. The husband could have suffered traumatic experience because of the police complaint and the consequent loss of reputation and prestige in the society. This Court is of the considered view that the facts and circumstances in the instant case would clearly speak of volume of the false complaint given by the appellant wife against her husband, which resulted in the criminal proceedings, which he had to face. It is true that he was arrested, and then, he was let on bail. No doubt, it is a clear case, wherein the reputation and prestige of the husband in the society has been spoiled. In such circumstances, lodging of the police complaint by the appellant wife has got to be necessarily termed as mental cruelty. In view of these reasons, it would be suffice to sustain the finding of the lower Court that there was sufficient ground of mental cruelty, which would necessitate for grant of divorce.
10. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent husband has not even made any arrangement for the maintenance of the appellant wife and the minor child also. In such circumstances, while confirming the order of the lower Court, it is made clear that the observations made herein, will not in any way impede the appellant to take necessary proceedings in respect of maintenance for herself and for the child. https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick/status/1021441313613459456
11. With the above observation, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps. are also dismissed.
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
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.