JUDGMENT

Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. (Oral) - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appeal is preferred against dissolution of marriage under decree of divorce by Family Court, Nanded dated 12-04-2017.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Bhapkar for appellant submits that the judgment and decree of Family Court has been in absence of evidence by appellant. He submits that opportunity be given to appellant to lead evidence in the matter, which hitherto could not be given for various reasons, including that there are several other legal matters pending between the parties.

4. On the other hand, Mr. V.P. Kadam, learned counsel for respondent submits that the appeal has been preferred to harass the respondent and to ruin his life and career. He submits that several opportunities which had come appellant''s way, which have been deliberately skipped to be availed with a view to vex the appellant. He submits that there have been several instances of cruelty not only alleged against the appellant but those have been proved. He further submits that conduct of appellant in the matter had been imbued with malafides and cruelty.

5. He submits that after marriage in 2008, for about two months, appellant had behaved properly. However, thereafter, she had threatened to discontinue relationship with the respondent. She had been whimsical in nature. She had insulted petitioner on his looks. Respondent had been made to bear with every kind of cruelty including suspecting his character and respondent had not been suitable for the family of appellant. She had been insisting upon to reside separately abandoning his parents and relatives. She caused mental and physical cruelty to respondent. Respondent had been abused and assaulted by her father and brothers. She had left the matrimonial house without any intimation in June, 2008 and had never resumed cohabitation. Efforts by his parents and relatives to bring her back to matrimonial home, had been futile. Her brother and his friends had been to the house of respondent. They had intimidated his mother and had demanded divorce. Information in respect of same had been lodged with police station. In the meeting thereafter, it was decided to have divorce by mutual consent by paying an amount of Rs. 3 Lakh and accordingly, the amount had been paid to father of respondent by demand draft. He submits that all aforesaid incidents have been brought before Court and Court had decided the issues, finding that appellant had deserted respondent for two years before petition and had treated him with cruelty.

6. Perusal of judgment shows that appellant had resisted the petition contending that there had been demand of Rs. 5 Lakh for getting permanent service to respondent and since her father could not fulfill the demand, she was being harassed. She was kept outside the house. She was prohibited from having food and good clothes. All sufferings were narrated by her to her parents. Her parents had tried to patch up the differences, however, to no avail. Efforts for reconciliation by appellant had failed. False report had been lodged against her brother. She thus, appears to have resisted the petition stating aforesaid.

7. Family Court has considered that the conduct of appellant in aggregate is an indication of mental cruelty being caused to respondent. Family Court has also referred to a case in this respect Prakash Kalandari v. Janvhi Kalandari AIR 2011 Bom. 119 .

8. Family Court has taken stock of the situation in paragraph no. 16 of its judgment, reading thus :

" 16. It would not be out of place to mention that the manner in which respondent has dragged this proceeding would also amount to causing mental cruelty to the other side. Record is self eloquent about the persistent efforts taken by respondent to prolong the petition. At every stage of trial she sought adjournments on different pretext. Even when the matter was pending for final arguments she sought adjournment on the grou