SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Bom) 1228

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
N.V.DABHOLKAR & M.G.GAIKWAD,JJ.
Parbhat S/o Shekuba Pawar .APPELLANT
VERSUS
Swati @ Pushpa W/o Parbhat Pawar . RESPONDENT
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.8/2006
Decided on : 31/8/2007

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
Shri N.S. Choudhari,Adv. for appellant
Shri B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-Dissolution of Hindu marriage-Marriage solemnised in 1994-After 2001 wife left house-Petition for divorce on ground of desertion filed by husband-Rejected and restitution of conjugal right ordered-Appeal against-Held, appeal filed by appellant/petitioner is liable to be dismissed.-One who claims a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion, it is for him to prove that the desertion alleged is for a continuous period of not less than 2 years and same is without any reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such a party. The wilful neglect of the petitioner by other party is also included in the Explanation of the section for the expression ’desertion’.

       The separation in the present case is not for a sufficient length of time as this petition is filed immediately after expiry of 2 years. As observed earlier, there are no serious instances in their marital life except the suspiction of the husband about the character of wife on account of incident alleged to have taken place in October, 2001. The nature of the said incident could not be proved and immediately after expiry of 2 years, the petition came to be filed. The husband is not claiming a decree for the divorce on the ground of mental cruelty but he is claiming decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion which he could not prove by satisfactory evidence. So on factual aspects, this case cannot be said to be a case of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage tie. Apart from these facts, irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to claim or to grant decree for dissolution of marriage. While deciding the present appeal in Court considered opinion the Court being an Appellate Court, cannot grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable break-down of the marriage which ground is not available in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hence, in Court’s considered opinion, as the husband failed to establish the ground of desertion, he cannot claim a decree for dissolution of marriage. His act itself was found a compelling circumstance for the wife to live separate and her separate residence was not found an intention to desert the husband permanently. Under these circumstance, husband cannot take benefit of his own wrong and claim a decree for divorce alleging irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

       Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - Decree for dissolution of marriage. - Failure of husband to establish ground of desertion, disentitled him to claim a decree for dissolution of marriage because of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

       Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - Divorce - On ground of desertion - Certain incident of misbehaviour by a person with wife during husband’s absence creates dispute - On mere suspicion about character of his wife, husband sent his wife to her parental home - No intention of wife to bring to an end permanently matrimonial relations - Husband failed to establish ground of desertion - His act itself a compelling circumstance for wife to live separate - Husband cannot claim a decree divorce on ground of desertion.

       Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-b) - Dissolution of marriage. - In absence of any intention on part of wife to bring an end to matrimonial relations, husband is not entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on ground of desertion.

       Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 28 - Appeal against dismissal of petition under Section 13(1)(i-b). - Husband cannot take benefit of his own wrong and claim a decree for divorce alleging irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

JUDGMENT

[PER GAIKWAD, J.]

1. Heard learned advocates for respective parties.

2. This appeal is preferred by appellant-husband feeling aggrieved with the judgment of Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.A-440/2003 whereby the petition preferred by this appellant under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for dissolution of marriage is dismissed and by allowing counter claim preferred by respondent-wife a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is passed against the appellant. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under :

3. The marriage of this couple was performed on 2/5/1994 as per Hindu rites and customs. The couple is having one daughter by name Tejashree who was six years of age at the time of filing of the petition. The husband is serving in M.S.C. bank branch at Aurangabad since 1992. The respondent-wife is qualified and possessing educational qualification M.A.B.Ed. After the marriage when she was cohabiting with the husband, she was insisting that the husband should search some job for her. When the husband could not search the job for her, in the month of January 2000, she had left the house of the husband saying that she will not turn up to his house till job is searched for her. She stayed at the house of her parents upto May 2000. Thereafter, she returned back to the husband’s house when he gave assurance to search a job for her. She herself got job as a Junior Lecturer in Jaibhavani Junior College, Garkheda, Aurangabad. She informed her husband that for the said job she has incurred expenses of Rs.75,000/- and asked husband to make provision for the same and the husband claims to have made provision of said amount by borrowing loan of Rs.one lakh. Thereafter, she had joined service as a Junior Lecturer with monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. When this couple was staying in the house of one Shri Y.N.Tambe in Sudarshannagar, CIDCO, Aurangabad. One day, the husband had gone out of Aurangabad for some work and in the evening when he returned back, he got information from Kailash Kolte that one Rangnath Jadhav the office bearer of educational institution where she was and is serving, had visited the house of appellant and he misbehaved with the respondent-wife. On that information, the husband asked the wife to leave the job as his status in the society is going to be disreputed. However, wife refused said proposal. After that incident there was change in her attitude. All the while she used to remain aloof and was not taking interest in the household matters. Inspite of the advice from the husband that she should not get disturbed, there was no change in her behaviour and lastly she left his house on 3/10/2001 and started staying at the house of her parents. Thereafter, he made many attempts to fetch her back, but he did not succeed. On 13/8/2003, in daily news paper "Samana" there was a news about the incident of outraging the modesty of respondent-wife because of which she is staying at the house of her parents. When the husband got information of the said news, he concluded that the wife had no desire to stay with him and it being a desertion for a period of more than 2 years, he had filed petition under Section 13 (1) (b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage.

4. Respondent-wife contested the petition before Family Court on the contentions raised in written statement Exh.4. She admits her status as wife of appellant and performance of their marriage on 2/5/1994 as well as birth of daughter Tejashree. She admits that she had secured a job as Junior Lecturer and joined the post in the month of June 2000. However, she denied that for the said job, husband was compelled to raise loan of Rs. One Lakh. She has admitted that alongwith her husband she was residing in the house of one Shri Y.N. Tambe in Sudarshannagar, CIDCO, Aurangabad but denied the alleged incident of misbehaviour by Rangnath Jadhav with her and that after the said incident, there was a change in her behav























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top