Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 52
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. DHANUKA, V.G. BISHT, JJ.
Sunesh Sudhakar Rele – Appellant
Versus
Seema Sunesh Rele – Respondent
Family Court Appeal No. 106 of 2012
Decided On : 07-04-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar.
Point of Law: Dismissal of divorce on ground of cruelty - Appeal against – Court not find any material on record to substantiate version of respondent-wife that because of some extraneous reasons, like her disturbed mental condition catalysed by alleged behaviour of husband and parent-in-laws she suffered miscarriage - Appellant-husband has successfully made out a case for getting a decree for divorce on ground of cruelty.
Headnote:
Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Section 27(d) - Seeking Divorce - Appellant-husband alleged that after their marriage, respondent started cruel and rude behaviour with him and his parents - Case of the appellant that from day of their marriage respondent was not very happy and was not talking with him and his family nicely - On next day of marriage itself, respondent informed appellant and his parents that her father had forced her into this marriage and had not allowed to get married to the person she wanted to and she had no intention to continue with this marriage and would do everything to break-up this marriage as she wanted a divorce Appellant-husband further alleged that after their marriage, respondent started cruel and rude behaviour with him and his parents, who are senior citizens. She used to abuse his parents for petty issues and also used to give bad words to them and threatened to beat them on several occasions.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent-wife was reluctant to stay with appellant-husband and somehow wanted to achieve monetary gain - Her evidence shows that because of alleged miscarriage her health was deteriorated and therefore, she claimed Rs. 10 lakhs from appellant-husband - This is quite inconsistent with her own notice addressed to counsel of appellant-husband - In said reply notice she categorically stated that she did not want to give divorce to appellant-husband and if appellant-husband wanted a divorce from her then he should shell out an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs towards compensation for giving consent for decree for divorce - This questionable conduct of respondent-wife went unnoticed from the sight of learned trial Judge - Testimony of appellant-husband remained intact in cross-examination - It is a case of virtual no cross-examination of various instances as deposed to by appellant-husband in his substantive evidence - In a sense, learned trial Judge recorded perverse findings which are not consistent with evidence on record, findings so arrived at by learned trial Judge is not sustainable - Considering evidence on record, in our view, appellant-husband has successfully made out a case for getting a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
V.G. BISHT, J.
1. The appellant-husband has filed this Family Court Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 2nd April, 2012 passed by the Family Court in Petition No. A-22 of 2010 whereby this Petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty as provided for under Section 27(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 ( for short “the act”) has been dismissed.
2. The appellant-husband entered into the matrimonial alliance with respondent-wife on 10th July, 2008 by registering the marriage with the Registrar of Marriages, Old Custom House, Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Fort, Mumbai No. 1. Parties have no issue from the wedlock.
3. It is the case of the appellant that from the day of their marriage the respondent was not very happy and was not talking with him and his family nicely. On the next day of the marriage itself, the respondent informed the appellant and his parents that her father had forced her into this marriage and had not allowed to get married to the person she wanted to and she had no intention to continue with this marriage and would do everything to break- up this marriage as she wanted a divorce.
4. The appellant-husband further alleged that after their marriage, the respondent started cruel and rude behaviour with him and his parents, who are senior citizens. She used to abuse his parents for petty issues and also used to give bad words to them and threatened to beat them on several occasions.
5. Appellant-husband then contends that the respondent informed him of having an affair with some other boy, who was very well known to her father but her father was against the said relationship, he did not inform the same to the appellant and his parents and concealed this material information and forced her to marry him against her wish. This speaks volumes of mental cruelty that the appellant and his parents had been a victim of. She also expressed her intention of being not interested in the said marriage and also said that she would continue to keep sexual relations with the other men even after her marriage with him with the sole intention of humiliating and spoiling him and his family name in the society.
6. According to appellant-husband, he was tolerating such cruel behaviour of the respondent just to save his marital life but after two months of the marriage in the month of September 2008, the respondent picked up a quarrel and started abusing him for no reason. Even she left the matrimonial home only to return after ten days with an intention of divorce.
7. The appellant-husband further alleged that the respondent used to avoid the physical relations and would tell that she was getting sexual satisfaction from other men and did not need to keep any sexual relations with him as he is of short height, not having good physique and not having real hair and wears a wig.
8. Ultimately, the respondent left the matrimonial house on 23rd April, 2009 and took all her ornaments along with her. After leaving the matrimonial home, the respondent even sent a legal notice and claimed of having been pregnant, although she was not pregnant and had no signs of any pregnancy when she left the matrimonial home.
9. The appellant-husband lastly states that the respondent had made his life very miserable and it is very difficult to live together and to enjoy marital life. It is against this backdrop, the appellant instituted the Petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
10. The aforesaid Petition was resisted by the respondent-wife by filing her written statement at Exh.13. The allegations made in the Petition were denied by the respondent. It is the case of respondent that she never asked divorce from the petitioner and rather, it was appellant who repeatedly asked for divorce as he wanted to remarry again with other girl for sake of fun and enjoyment. She denied that she ill-treated her in-laws and ever assaulted them. It is he
