2018 Supreme(Bom) 580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.
Sumit Vijay Kumar & Another - Petitioner
Versus
Shraddha Gupta Jain & Another - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 7175 of 2017, 1215 of 2018, 1229 of 2018 & 6268 of 2017
Decided On : 13-04-2018
For the Petitioners: Manjula Rao, Sushmitha Sherigar, Rupali Naik
For the Respondents: Taubon F. Irani
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 498A - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13 - Paying EMI of that flat - Allegation - Order to appreciate orders which are assailed before this Court it would be necessary to refer chronology of events in brief to appreciate background in which orders have been passed by Family Court and to deal with rival contentions of parties assailing said orders petitioner Jain is aged 36 years and is presently working as a Vice-President with Group whereas wife Gupta aged is working as Vice-President of Axis Bank- marriage between parties was an arranged marriage and was solemnized - At time of marriage both parties were serving with Axis Bank but wife was serving in Delhi and husband was serving at Mumbai- However after marriage wife sought a transfer from Delhi to Mumbai branch of Axis Bank and she continues to work in Axis Bank in Mumbai whereas husband gave up his job with Axis Bank and engaged himself in another job with Group of Companies parties were residing in a rented flat- However parties booked two flats by availing two separate loans –Held, Family Court has dealt with issue by taking into account comparative statement of school fees AVM School tendered by husband which was initially selected by mother herself and JBCN school- Perusal of order of Family Court reveals that fees of AVM school per annum whereas fees in JBCN school per annum- There is thus a difference of approximately times in fees of latter school as compared to former mother can insist a good schooling for a child but she cannot insist that it should be school which involves high expenditure because necessarily merely because fees are high would not make school a good school- concern of a mother that child should be put in a good school is understandable- father do not have any quarrel about said concern and both parties are at ad idem that daughter should be sent to a school which would provide her good schooling and at same time it should be at a distance close to residence and to her day care- With great maturity both parties agree before Court that they would find out one such school and would then take a decision of admitting child in said school from next academic session- In light of said consensus reached between parties this Court is not called upon to decide writ petition arising out of order passed by Family Court Mumbai on an interim application filed by wife - Petition disposed
1. The group of 4(four) petitions were heard together, by consent of the parties, since the issues in the four petitions revolve around the marital discord between the same parties, and it was more appropriate to deal with the different issues amongst them and dispose off all the petitions by passing common order touching different issues. All the four writ petitions assail the orders passed by the Family Court and either of the parties is aggrieved by the said order.
2. The present group of petitions are a reflection of the pertinent and peculiar issues arising in a marital discord in a metropolitan city where both the spouses strive together to build a nest and nurture it for the new born. Emily Dickinson's Poem “For every Bird a nest” truly reflects the situation in which the modern day couples find themselves placed in.
“For every bird a Nest
wherefore in timid quest
some little Wren goes seeking around
Perhaps a home too high
Ah Aristocracy !
The little Wren desires
Yet who of all the throng
Dancing around the Sun
Does so Rejoice?
However, on account of some discord when this nest is sought to be divided along with the sharing of responsibilities as parents towards the child of tender age. The parties would be hereinafter referred to as 'husband' and 'wife' in order to avoid the shifting of the caption in the respective petitions since the parties have been impleaded in accordance with the petitions filed in the irrespective capacities.
In order to appreciate the orders which are assailed before this Court, it would be necessary to refer to the chronology of events in brief to appreciate the background in which the orders have been passed by the Family Court and to deal with the rival contentions of the parties assailing the said orders. The petitioner Sumit Jain is aged 36 years, and is presently working as a Vice-President (Sales) with Lodha Group, whereas the wife Shraddha Gupta, aged 31 years is working as Vice-President of the Axis Bank. The marriage between the parties was an arranged marriage and was solemnized on 8th March 2011 at Gaziabad. At the time of marriage, both the parties were serving with Axis Bank, but the wife was serving in Delhi and husband was serving at Mumbai. However, after marriage, the wife sought a transfer from Delhi to Mumbai branch of Axis Bank, and she continues to work in Axis Bank in Mumbai, whereas the husband in June 2016 gave up his job with the Axis Bank and engaged himself in another job with the Lodha Group of Companies. Upto 2012, the parties were residing in a rented flat. However, in May 2012, the parties booked two flats by availing two separate loans. The parties jointly purchased two flats at Cosmic Heights, Bhakti Park, Wadala (East), Mumbai. The parties were never able to convert the said house into a 'home' providing nest for their child and it is hereinafter referred to as “matrimonial house”. The dispute around the parties is concentrated on an issue as to whether the unit which they purchased was one flat or whether they are two flats. Out of the wedlock, a child was born in 2014 and before the parties could enjoy the bliss of the new born coming into their life, and before they could assume their responsibilities as mother and father, the marriage of the parties started sailing through a rough phase. The allegation of the wife is that the husband inflicted cruelty upon her and there was persistent demand of dowry. According to the wife, an amount of Rs.1.4 crores was spend on the wedding, and an amount of Rs.50 lakhs was given in cash. Inspite of this, the family of the husband was not happy and there was demand of more amount. It is the allegation of the wife that jewellery worth crore of rupees was handed over to the husband and his family. The wife also makes certain allegations about the marriage being not consummated for initial period of six months in view of the erratic habits of the husband, but according to her, he was treated for the cause and the marriage was