The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing the cumulative impact of events and circumstances to assess the total impact on the party alleging cruelty.

JUDGMENT - H.L. GOKHALE, J.:---This appeal is filed by a wife seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 10th November, 1990 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pune, on a petition moved by the respondent-husband under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, allowing the said petition. Shri Shastri appears for the appellant and Shri Hardikar appears for the respondent. We would like to record at the outset, that before proceeding with final hearing, we made goods efforts to see if the controversy could be resolved amicably, but our efforts failed.

2. The parties were married on 10th March, 1985 and a son named Vivek was born out of this marriage on 25th August, 1986. Subsequently, the above referred petition for divorce bearing Petition No. A- 405 of 1989 was filed by the respondent-husband which has led to the impugned judgment and decree. In this petition, he alleged that the appellant was insisting on separate residence and that she did not behave properly with the elders in the family. Thereafter it is alleged that the appellant-wife attempted to commit suicide on a number of occasions, causing mental agony and cruelty to the respondent. Ultimately, she went away from the matrimonial home on 5th September, 1985 only to return 3 months thereafter on 12th December, 1985. That was in pursuance and intervention of the elders in the family and after executing a writing on stamp paper on 8th December, 1985 (Exhibit 27 in the Family Court) that henceforth such situation will not recur. Parties had lived together thereafter. In fact, the son-Vivek is born thereafter on 25th August, 1986. It is however, stated that in the petition filed before the Family Court that subsequently also, the appellant wife continued to treat the respondent/husband with cruelty. She used to make false allegations and went to the extent of lodging a false complaint to the Police Station in November, 1987. All these facts led the petitioner to believe that it would not be possible to continue any further with the appellant-wife. Thereafter, he filed above referred petition seeking divorce.

3. The appellant-wife filed written statement. She denied various allegations made in the petition. Thereafter issues were framed and evidence was led. From the side of the respondent-husband he examined himself, his father and one Shri Chandrakant Pawar. From the side of the appellant-wife, she examined herself and her father. Thereafter, above referred decree was passed on 10th November, 1990. This appeal was filed on 28th Janurary, 1991, though the last date for filing appeal was 20th January, 1991. The respondent got re-married in the meanwhile on 26th January, 1991. Inasmuch as there was delay of 8 days in filing appeal, the appellant filed an application for condonation of delay. A Division Bench of this Court, which heard that application however disposed of the said civil application by order dated 4th April, 1991 taking a view that there was no delay in filing the appeal. Respondent filed civil application for review of that order but the Division Bench rejected it by another order dated 13th September, 1991. It is also material to note that this appeal was not diligently followed up by the appellant and the appeal came to be dismissed for not removing office objections. It was restored later on after complying with the requirements on 25th December, 1995.

4. As far as the financial circumstances of the parties are concerned, the appellant-wife is having an employment in the State Government, whereas the respondent-husband is an industrial workman in Bajaj Auto Ltd. From the information with respect to salary made available by both the parties, it would be seen that take home salary of the appellant was over Rs. 7500/- p.m. whereas the take home salary of the respondent is about Rs. 5500/- p.m. After contracting second marriage, the respondent has another son born from this second marriage, whereas his son from the earlier marriage has contin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document