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

2018 Supreme(Bom) 818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE, S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
Shraddha W/o. Prasad Ganu - Appellant
Versus
Prasad S/o. Nilkanth Ganu - Respondent
Family Court Appeal No.36 of 2017 with Civil Application No.12452 of 2017
Decided on : 15-06-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.S.R.Dheple, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Smt.R.R.Mane, Advocate.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - Injuries - Relatives were against marriage - Petitioner husband before Family Court was that within months of marriage respondent wife on some ground or other started taunting his parents and pick up fight - Petitioner being only son of his parents they tolerated respondents mental and physical ill treatment - Even after birth of son there was no change in behavior of respondent - She also started ill treating petitioner - According to petitioner on being frustrated his parents and he himself being fed up with conduct and behavior respondent decided in February live separately from his parents - In spite of living separately there was no change in behavior of respondent - Held, In this view of matter reasons assigned by trial Court in paragraphs to arrive at conclusion that respondent caused cruelty petitioner and particularly reasons that very fact that petitioner was sent for medical examination police and medical paper reveals that he has been physically abused and that this act on part respondent parse was sufficient enough to hold that she has physically ill-treated petitioner are not proper and sufficient to hold that respondent caused cruelty to petitioner – Therefore finding of trial Court based on said reasons that petitioner has proved that respondent has caused cruelty to him is not sustainable and same is liable to be quashed and set aside - In above circumstances ratio laid in decisions in case of Samar supra relied upon by Advocate appearing for petitioner husband are not applicable to this case to state that respondent caused mental cruelty to petitioner as facts present case are different from facts of said decisions – Court therefore answer both point formulated by us in negative and hold that petitioner is not entitled to divorce on ground cruelty Section Hindu Marriage Act – Therefore impugned decree is liable to be set aside by allowing appeal leaving parties to bear their own costs in circumstances present in case - In result following order is passed - Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

S.M. GAVHANE, J.

1. The appellant wife (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') against whom decree for divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been passed on 11.08.2017, in petition No.A342/ 2016 filed by present respondent-husband (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner'), by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the said decree.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as under:

(A)The marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 05.01.2013 according to the Hindu Vedic Rites and it is love marriage. After marriage they resided at Aurangabad and one son is born from the said wedlock, who is in the custody of respondent.

(B) Case of the petitioner/husband before the Family Court was that within 4 to 5 months of the marriage the respondent/wife on some ground or other started taunting his parents and pick up a fight. The petitioner being only son of his parents, they tolerated respondent's mental and physical ill-treatment. Even after birth of the son, there was no change in the behavior of the respondent. She also started ill-treating the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on being frustrated, his parents and he himself being fed up with the conduct and behavior of the respondent decided in February, 2016 to live separately from his parents. In spite of living separately, there was no change in the behavior of respondent.

(C) Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent threatened him that she would send him and his parents to jail, as her mother is criminal lawyer. She left all the gifted jewellery given to her by his father, at her mother's house. He used to hand over entire salary to her. Both of them were earning but income was not huge. The respondent used to insist for buying a flat, air conditioner, car, Fridge and TV. He gave understanding that their economical condition is not so good, but in vain. The respondent being short tampered, was insulting him in presence of the relatives, friends and guests.

(D) According to petitioner on 29.06.2016, there was Death Anniversary of father of respondent. Due to work he reached home at 11.00 O'clock. The respondent quarreled with him on the issue of his returning home late. The petitioner found pizzas at home. He inquired from the respondent about it. The respondent in a fit of anger attacked him. She scratched him with her nails, hit him with kicks and blows. One of the blows hit on his eye and the same turned black. He got injuries on his neck and chest. Since the incident occurred at night, on the next day i.e. on 30.06.2016, he went to the police station and lodged complaint against the respondent, being Crime No.1754/2016 dated 02.07.2016. He was sent by the police to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad for medical examination and treatment.

(E) According to the petitioner, after the said incident, due to mental and physical ill-treatment at the hands of respondent, it is not possible to continue to live with the respondent. He apprehends danger to his life. The mother of respondent on telephone abused and threatened the petitioner of filing false criminal complaints and sending him to jail. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed petition for dissolution of marriage and ultimately prayed to dissolve the marriage between him and the respondent on the ground of cruelty.

(F) Respondent/wife resisted the petition by filing reply at Exh.9. She has admitted her marriage with the petitioner and birth of son from said wedlock. However, she has denied almost all the allegations made against her by the petitioner attributing cruelty to him by her.

(G) Case of the respondent is that being a love marriage, the parents of the petitioner and his relatives were against the marriage. The entire marriage expenses of Rs.4.5 lacs to 5 lacs including jewellery had to be met by her parents. On 07.01.2013, the mother of the petitioner on the pretext of keep



























































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