Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Ashok Agarwal Arvind Savant, JJ.
Rajan Vasant Revankar.... Appellant.
Versus
Mrs. Shobha Rajan Revankar.... Respondent.
Family Court First Appeal No. 37 of 1993, decided on 24/25-3-1994.
Advocates appeared :
A.P. Gupte, for appellant.
Smt. Shobha Rajan Revankar, party-in-person.
Held-The subsequent events and conduct even during the pendency of the petition and appeal have been taken into account for the purpose of granting relief to the petitioner. The reckless and wild allegations made by the wife in the written statement going beyond the purview of what was necessary for denying the allegatious made against her. In this view of the matter, held that the respondent/wife has treated the appellant/husband with such cruelty as is sufficient to disolve the marriage by a decree of divorce.
Section 13 (1) (ia)-Husbands divorce on ground of cruelty-What actions and conduct of wife amounted to cruelty In matrimonial Jaw?
Held-What is wrose and wat disturbs is the wifes letter dated 14-2-1992 at Exh. 96 where she has made wild, reckless and baseless allegations not against P but particularly against the mother of the husband and his twa married sisters. She has abused them in the filthiest words attributing all sorts of illicit relations to them; compared them with prostitutes and as Women who are capable of pocketing any number of men by showing them their white skin and flesh. The wife did not stop at making these wild and scandalous which are totally baseless. She has reiterated them in her letter dated 17-7-1992 and has said that every word of the letter at Exh.96 was a litser truth. She has however, not led any evidence whatsoever to justify or to prove the allegations made by her. Thus, the wife has resorted to making wild, reckless and scandalous allegations against the husbands mother and his two married sisters apart from condemning P. It is difficult to except the husband to cohabit with such a woman and no reasonable man can be expected to live with such a wife. As stated earlier, the wife did not even spare the husband and questioned him as to whether he had got another woman for his bed. This clear from the letter at Exh. 73 dated 29-3-1972 written by the wife to the husband. All these actions and her conduct after 30-7-1987 clearly amount to cruelty in matrimonial law.
Section 13 (1) (ia)-Word cruelty-Conduct of such type that husband cannot live with respondent wife.
Though the word cruelty has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, cruelty contemplate under Clause (ia) of Section 13 (1) neither attrancts the old English doctrine of danger, not the statutory limits embodied in the old Section 10 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. After the amendment of 1976, cruelty contemplated by Section 13 (1) (ia) is a conduct of such type that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent or that it has become impossible for the spouses together.
Section 25-Scope.
As far as granting relief under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, it contemplates that the courts exercising jurisdiction under the Act may, at the time of the passing any decree, pass an order for maintenance of the spouse awarding a monthly or periodical sum of money which can be directed to be paid having regard to the income of the parties, property held by them and the conduct of the parties and another circumstances of the case. On the other hand, the wife has pointed out that the husband has substantial income from his profession as a Chartered Accountant. The wife her deposed an exaggerated figure of Rs. 8000 per month. In Civil Application No. 5885 of 1993, the husbands version was that his net annual income was hardly Rs. 24,500/-. He had disclosed his gross receipts at Rs. 24,500/- for the accounting year 1992-93. Having considered the rival submissions held that the order granting Rs. 1,200 per month as maintenance calls for no interference in the appeal. The Family Court while granting the said amount of Rs. 1,200/- per months has taken into account the fact that this will take care of the wifes maintenance in all aspects. There is no reason to take a different view of this aspect of the matter.
ARVIND SAVANT, J.:—This appeal is by the original petitioner-husband against the judgment and decree dated 15th March, 1993 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bombay, in M.J. Petition No. A-877 of 1991. The husband had filed the petition for divorce mainly on two grounds, viz. :-
(i) that he was treated by the respondent-wife with cruelty after the solemnisation of the marriage, as contemplated by Clause (ia) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and
(ii) that the respondent-wife had deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, as contemplated by Clause (ib) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act.
Another ground on which relief was sought was under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act contending that the marriage was not consumated. However, this contention has not been pressed before us. Under the impugned-Judgment, the husbands petition has been dismissed with costs. The wifes counter-claim in respect of certain ornaments, which she claimed as her streedhan property, has been decreed fully to the tune of Rs. 1,15,415/- and the husband has been ordered to pay Rs. 1,200/- per month to the wife by way of maintenance. It is this decree which has been challenged before us by the husband in the present appeal. At the stage of admission of this appeal, this Court directed the husband to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from out of the amount of Rs. 1,15,415/- decreed in favour of the wife. This was the condition on which stay of the decree was granted. The amount of maintenance was raised to Rs. 1,500/- per month pending the appeal.
2. We have heard Shri Gupte, the learned Counsel for the husband, and the respondent-wife in person at great length during the last two weeks. When this matter was initially called out, we enquired with the spouses as to whether it was possible to reconcile their differences and start living together. After a brief adjournment, the parties expressed their inability to reconcile their differences. We had even asked Shri Gupte to act as a mediator and try to bring about a reconciliation between the spouses. However, after a day, he regretted his inability to bring about any reconciliation. When the matter was part-heard over the last week-end, we had again requested both the spouses to meet and try to reconcile their differences, but on resumption of the hearing this week, the parties again expressed their inability to reconcile their differences. Under the circumstances, we are left with no alternative, but to proceed with the matter and decide the same in accordance with law.
3. A few admitted facts may be stated as under :
The husband Rajan is a Chartered Accountant. The wife Shobha was a B.Sc. with Mathematics when she married the appellant, but in June 1989 she has passed her First LL.B. and in June 1990 she has passed her Second LL.B. and she is now doing her Final Year LL.B. course. The spouses were distantly related and their families had known each other before the marriage. They were engaged at the house of the wife at Bandra-Bombay - on the 19th December, 1985. The marriage took place at Dombivli, near Bombay on the 4th June, 1986. There is some unpleasantness suggested on account of the husbands failure to mention his academic qualifications in the marriage invitation card which was being finalised in the month of May, 1986. This event led the wife and particularly, her father to doubt the appellant being a Chartered Accountant and his holding the requisite qualification. This is clear from the letter dated 15th May, 1986 at Exh. 58 written by the wife to the husband. In the said letter, the wife specifically confessed that she had felt sorry for having questioned his educational qualification and argued with him on that point which had hurt him very much. However, that issue was resolved between the parties and we are not attaching any importance
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
