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

2017 Supreme(Bom) 2540

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.S. Oka, A.A. Sayed, JJ.
Mrs. Christine Lazarus Menezes – Appellant
Vs.
Mr. Lazarus Peter Menezes – Respondent
Family Court Appeal No. 150 of 2008 along with Criminal Revision Application No.368 of 2008
Decided On : 21-04-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Jeet Gandhi and Ms. Varsha Bhogle i/by Shri. D.R. Shah, Advocates
For the Respondent:Smt. Prabha Badadare, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the wife's acts of cruelty, leading to the dissolution of marriage. The court also emphasized the importance of considering subsequent events and conduct in determining the grounds for divorce.

Headnote:

Divorce - Dissolution of Marriage - Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10(ix), 10(x) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - [CRUELTY] - [DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE] - [Sections 10(ix), 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973] - The court allowed the husband's petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of 'cruelty' and 'desertion' under sections 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869. The court referred to various judgments including Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 to define 'cruelty' and establish that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The court found that the wife's false criminal complaint against the husband constituted cruelty, leading to the dissolution of marriage. However, the court set aside the decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion as the husband had filed the petition within two years of leaving the matrimonial home.

Fact of the Case:

The husband filed for divorce on the grounds of 'cruelty' and 'desertion' under sections 10(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869. The wife filed for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Family Court allowed the husband's petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of 'cruelty' and 'desertion' and partly allowed the wife's petition by granting maintenance for the daughters but rejecting the wife's claim for maintenance.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the husband was subjected to mental cruelty by the wife, leading to the dissolution of marriage on the ground of 'cruelty'. However, the court set aside the decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of 'desertion'. The court upheld the rejection of maintenance to the wife.

Issues: The issues included proving desertion and cruelty, entitlement for a decree of divorce, and maintenance for the wife and daughters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments to define 'cruelty' and establish that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The court found that the wife's false criminal complaint against the husband constituted cruelty, leading to the dissolution of marriage. However, the court set aside the decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion as the husband had filed the petition within two years of leaving the matrimonial home.

Final Decision: The court allowed the husband's petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of 'cruelty' and set aside the decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of 'desertion'. The court upheld the rejection of maintenance to the wife.

JUDGMENT :

A.A. Sayed, J.

The above Family Court Appeal and Civil Revision Application are filed by the Appellant/Applicant/wife challenging the common judgment and order dated 26 May 2008 passed by the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, in Petition No.A-1162/2005 and Petition No.E-187/2005. Petition No.A-1162/2005 was filed by the Respondent/husband for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty under sections 10(ix) and (x) respectively of the Divorce Act, 1869. Petition No.E-187/2005 was filed by the Appellant/Applicant/wife for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The operative part of the impugned common judgment of the Family Court reads as under:

"ORDER

Petition No. A-1162/2005:

Petition is allowed with costs.

The marriage between the Petitioner-Lazarus Peter Menezes and the respondent-Christine Lazarus Menazes solemnized on 28-12-1987 is hereby dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage.

Decree be drawn up accordingly.

Petition No.E-187/2005:

The Petition is partly allowed.

As regards the claim of maintenance of the Petitioner is concerned, it is rejected.

The Respondent shall pay Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the daughters payable from the date of this order.

He shall pay Rs.2,000/- to her towards cost and bear his own."

Both, the Family Court Appeal as well as the Civil Revision Application, are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as 'husband' and 'wife'. They were married according to Christian rites and customs on 28-12-1987. Both were residing in the same building and fell in love with each other and decided to get married. At the time of marriage the husband was an electrical contractor and the wife was working as a clerk in a school at Bandra. They were blessed with two daughters born on 28-9-1988 and 8-5-1990 respectively. In or about 1989, the husband got a job as Electrician in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL).

3. Common evidence was recorded by the Family Court in the husband's Petition for divorce and the wife's Petition for maintenance. The husband has examined himself. The wife examined herself and 3 witnesses in support of her case. After hearing the parties, the Family Court allowed the Petition of the husband and passed a decree of dissolution of marriage between the parties on the grounds of 'cruelty' and 'desertion' and partly allowed the Petition of the wife by granting maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to each of the two daughters and rejected the prayer of maintenance to the wife, as indicated in paragraph 1 herein above.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel have taken us through the pleadings and evidence recorded by the Family Court.

Family Court Appeal No. 150 of 2008

5. The issues framed and answered by the Family Court in respect of the husband's Petition No.A-1162/2005 seeking divorce, were recorded as under:

Issues

Findings

(1) Does the Petitioner prove that the Respondent has deserted him for at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the Petition ?

In the Affirmative

(2) Does the Petitioner prove that the Respondent has treated him with cruelty ?

In the Affirmative

(3) Is he entitled for a decree of divorce ?

In the Affirmative

(4) Whether the Petitioner be declared as an exclusive owner and in possession of the Flat 45/2219, Samadhan CHS Ltd. Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 of his matrimonial house and row house No.17 at Ashwini Residency, Sansodo Raia Salcette, Goa and that the Respondent has no right or claim to sell away or dispose of the same without prior written consent of the Petitioner ?

 

OR in the alternative

 

Whether the Petitioner be declared the joint owner and in possession with Respo





















































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top