SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act by a Mohammedan husband complaining against the correctness and validity of the judgment and decree dated 16. 8. 2001 passed by the family Court at Belgaum in O. S. No. 24/00 whereby the Family Court has decreed the suit of the respondent/wife and granted a decree of divorce in favour of the wife by dissolving the marriage between the parties and decreed the suit which had been filed invoking the provisions of sub-section (ii) of Section 2 of Dissolution of Muslim marriage Act, 1939.

( 2 ) THE husband being aggrieved by this judgment and decree of the Family Court dissolving his marriage with the respondent/wife is in appeal before us.

( 3 ) SRI V. V. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that an interesting question of law governing the interpretation of sub-section (ii) of Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises in this appeal and the out come of the appeal essentially depends on the interpretation that has to be placed on Section 2 (ii) of the Act and submits that the appeal has to be allowed and the judgment and decree set aside if the particular interpretation as sought for by the learned Counsel is accepted by the Court.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel has also relied upon the earlier decision of other High Courts interpreting the very provision which supports his submissions.

( 5 ) THE brief facts leading to the suit and this appeal are that the parties whom we address with reference to the ranks in the original suit were married according to the customs prevailing in the mohammedan community in a marriage that was performed on 21. 11. 1996 at Belgaum. The wife who was the plaintiff in the suit joined her husband/defendant at his parental house at Dharbargalli, belgaum. It is pleaded that the couple lived as husband and wife only for a few days and immediately thereafter, the husband went away to Saudi Arabia in December 1996 itself. That he returned to belgaum after a long stay in Saudi Arabia only in the month of november 1997. It is pleaded that even after such return, the defendant started quarrelling with the plaintiff and subjected her to harassment. There were demands for bringing dowry and that the husband was physically assaulting the wife. The sister of the husband whose marriage had broken down and who had come back to the family house only complicated the matters by poisoning the mind of her husband. That the husband took his wife and left her in her parental house on 7. 12. 1997 and thereafter, has not cared either to take her back or provide her any maintenance. In the circumstances, it was pleaded that the plaintiff/wife was entitled to seek dissolution of the marriage under Section 2 (ii) of the Act. Though many other facts are pleaded these basic facts are sufficient for the purpose of the present appeal.

( 6 ) THE defendant/husband entered appearance and contested the suit, written statement was filed denying the plaint averments. Allegations of cruelty was specifically denied. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff/wife suffered from a sense of superiority complex; that she was obsessed that she is a very pretty lady and better educated than the husband and that the husband was not a match and as such, was herself not willing to live with the husband and went away to her parents house; that the efforts on the part of the husband to bring her back did not yield any result as the wife did not respond to the same; that the wife never wanted to live with her husband and there was absolutely no justification for her to leave the matrimonial house or live separately justifying the provisions of any maintenance by the husband; that the suit of the plaintiff for dissolution of marriage under Section 2 (ii) of the Act is not tenable; that there is no cause of action for the suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

( 7 ) IN the light of such rival

Click Here to Read the rest of this document