Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(G. N. Vaidya and P. R. Mridul JJ.)
SHANTA WADHWA Appellant.
v.
PURSHOTTAM MOIIANDAS WADHW A Respondent.
Advocate Appeared
Far appellant-D. K. Jha with Mrs. Anasuya Dutt.
Far respondent-Mahendra Gill with J. P. Daiya.
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 10(1)(B) - JUDICIAL SEPARATION - CRUELTY - MENTAL AND LEGAL - ADMISSIONS BY HUSBAND - REASONABLE APPREHENSION - INJUNCTION - MAINTENANCE - MATRIMONIAL HOME.
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed a petition for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty by the husband. The husband denied the allegations and claimed that the wife was having extra-marital relationships. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the petition, disbelieving the wife's story of physical cruelty and holding that the allegations of mental cruelty were not proved.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and granted a decree for judicial separation in favor of the wife. The court held that the husband's admissions in his written statement and evidence that he had accused the wife of having extra-marital relationships with her professional colleagues and others amounted to cruelty within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court also held that the wife had a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful and injurious for her to live with the husband any longer.
Issues: 1. Whether the husband's allegations of extra-marital relationships against the wife amounted to cruelty within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act? 2. Whether the wife had a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful and injurious for her to live with the husband any longer? 3. Whether the court had the power to grant an injunction restraining the husband from entering the matrimonial home?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the husband's allegations of extra-marital relationships against the wife amounted to cruelty within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court noted that the husband had admitted in his written statement and evidence that he had made these allegations, and that such allegations were insulting and hurtful to the wife. 2. The court held that the wife had a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful and injurious for her to live with the husband any longer. The court considered the wife's profession as an advocate, the husband's drinking and abusive behavior, and the husband's allegations of extra-marital relationships. The court found that these factors created a reasonable apprehension in the wife's mind that it would be harmful and injurious for her to live with the husband. 3. The court held that it had the power to grant an injunction restraining the husband from entering the matrimonial home. The court noted that the matrimonial home was 'maintenance' as defined in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, and that the court had the power to grant an injunction under Section 18(1) and (2)(b) of that Act.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the wife's appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and granted a decree for judicial separation in favor of the wife. The court also granted an injunction restraining the husband from entering the matrimonial home.
VAIDYA J. - The above Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the wife, against the judgment, dated September 24, 1975, in F. A. No. 92 of 1975, confirming the judgment and decree dated February 6, 1975, passed by a Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court in her petition, under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree for judicial separation. In the petition she had also prayed for an injunction restraining the husband and his servants and agents from entering flat No.4, situate in Ganga Bhavan, 24th Road, Bandra, which is the matrimonial home of the couple, and for a costs of the petition.
2. The petitioner was married to the respondent on March 10, 1954, according to the Hindu Vedic Rites. It was a love marriage. She is enrolled as an advocate of this Court; and she has been practising in the Courts in Bombay. The allegations which she made in the petition against the husband may be briefly summarised as under:
3. There is no issue of the marriage. The marriage with the respondent appeared to have gone on smoothly for sometime. They lived and cohabited at the petitioner's parents' place at Bhatia Bhavan, Parel, for six months. She managed to find a ~ace; and they shifted to Santacruz to a single room tenement at a rent of Rs. 50 per month. As the respondent who was a trader of some Sort, was not at all doing well in his business and could give only Rs. 100 per month to the petitioner for household expenses, she had to Jive in miserable circumstances.
4. The wife was determined to improve the economic status by taking education. She joined Sophia College, Bombay, and continued her studies. She worked hard at her studies as well as household duties. She had also to cope up with what she has chosen to describe as her husband's "sexual vagaries". In 1955, the petitioner became pregnant. The husband did not show any concern or care and refused to help her in any way to lighten her burden.
5. This pained the wife. She began to pass through mental agony due to physical strain and mental torture in April 1956. The petitioner had a mis-marriage. The husband did not care to nurse her back to normality or to give any medical treatment, as he stated that he could not afford it. She had to go to the Doctor to get the medicines etc. The attitude of the husband upset her and disturbed her.
6. In October 1956, again the petitioner conceived. As she was anxious to have a child, she requested her husband to be considerate towards her. The husband did not bother and started quarrelling with her and harassing her in various ways. She was shocked. Her health began to fail. She began to faint away very often on road and finally with the help of her sister, she went to the late Dr. Shirodkar for treatment.
7. On February 7, 1957, she complained of a severe pain in the abdomen to the respondent; but he just ignored it and went to Work. Later, on February 8, 1957, the petitioner had rushed with the help of the neighbours to the hospital in serious condition. At the hospital it was discovered that it was tuber-pregnancy. She was operated. After the operation she stayed with her parents for a month. Her parents looked after her until she gained back her normal health.
8. After a year, she consulted Dr. Shirodkar, who advised her to get operated once again in order to have a child. She told this to the respondent and his mother. They said that they did not need any more children in the family as there were too many already. Years passed by, but the marriage continued to be childless. The desire of the wife to have a child was completely frustrated. She began to devote herself to studies with hardly any encouragement from her husband.
9. On the contrary, the husband and the members of his family began to harass her; and her life was becoming more and more imposible with the husband. In 1961, the husband asked the wife to go to Poona to look after his brothers and sister as his parents were going on a holiday. The wife went; she was treat
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
