IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
A.S. Chandurkar, N. B. Suryawanshi, JJ.
Smt. Vandana Rajesh Mate & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Shri. Rajesh & Ors. - Respondents
Family Court Appeal (FCA) No.80 of 2015, Family Court Appeal (FCA) No.81 of 2015 and Criminal Revision Application No.120 of 2015
Decided On : 18-02-2021
Family Courts Act - Matrimonial Dispute - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the grounds for divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the criteria for restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court also referred to legal principles established in previous cases such as Kishor s/o. Shamrao Dongre v. Smt. Rohini W/o. Kishor Dongre and Vishnu S/o. Babanrao Yadav v. Nalini W/o. Vishnu Yadav.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant wife filed appeals challenging the judgment of the Family Court, which granted divorce to the respondent husband and dismissed her petition for restitution of conjugal rights. She also filed a criminal revision application challenging the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court heard arguments from both parties and reviewed the evidence presented in the matrimonial dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent failed to prove the cruelty of the appellant as required under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It also concluded that the appellant was entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights and an increased maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month from the date of filing the maintenance petition.
Issues: The main issues were whether the divorce decree was legally correct, whether the appellant was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights, and whether the maintenance awarded required interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from previous cases to determine the evidence of cruelty and the entitlement to restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance. It emphasized the need for specific evidence and the impact on the mental and physical health of the parties.
Final Decision: The court set aside the divorce decree, granted the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, and increased the maintenance to Rs. 5,000 per month from the date of filing the maintenance petition.
JUDGMENT
N. B. Suryawanshi, J. - The present appeals filed by the appellant wife under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenge the common judgment passed by the Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No.A-365 of 2012 filed by the respondent husband for divorce. The appellant wife assailing the decision of the Family Court in Petition No.A-111 of 2013, thereby refusing her petition for restitution of conjugal rights and by filing Criminal Revision Application challenge the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court in Petition No.E-382 of 2012. Since all these three decisions are given in a matrimonial dispute between the appellant and the respondent, they are being decided by this common judgment.
Petition No.A-365 of 2012.
2. The respondent filed this Petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the said Act") seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion in short contending that, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.12.2010 as per Buddhist Rites at Nagpur. On the day of marriage with the wife, husband was having two daughters namely Susmita and Ishita aged about ten years and five years and an ailing 80 year old Mother. The husband was a Corporator of Nagpur Municipal Corporation at the time of marriage. The wife was aware about these facts prior to the marriage. After marriage, the wife started residing with the husband at his house near Mangalwari Garaden at Nagpur. Parents of the wife used to reside at Indora area at Nagpur. While getting married, the husband was under impression that the wife would take care of his daughters and ailing mother, but the wife neglected and refused to do any household duties towards them. She was in the habit of frequently visiting her parent's house. Every day, she was taunting the husband in filthy language. She was beating the daughters without just and sufficient cause. She did not provide meals to his daughters and ailing mother. In spite of understanding given to her by the husband and the elders of both the families at several times, the behavior of the wife did not change, she used to threaten him that she will commit suicide and put him behind the bars. She was having more affection towards her parents. He was frustrated with the behavior of the wife. The wife left matrimonial home on 01.09.2011 by giving threats to commit suicide and putting him behind the bars.
3. The wife denied all the allegations by filing a written statement. She averred that she cohabited with the husband till 14.04.2012. Due to his adamant behavior, the husband created an unhealthy atmosphere. He was treating her just as a maid servant, although she was discharging her household duties. Because of this abnormal behavior, it became unsafe for her to live with him. Her health deteriorated due to the continuous ill treatment given to her by the husband and it gave her mental stress. She was never taken to the Doctor. The husband neglected her. The husband and his mother quarreled with the wife and threatened her with life and limb. Apprehending danger to her life, she had to leave the matrimonial home on 01.09.2011 and since then, she was living at the mercy of her parents. She claimed that she was ready to cohabit with the husband and his divorce petition be dismissed.
Petition No.A-111 of 2013
The wife reiterated the above contentions in Petition No.A-111 of 2013 filed for restitution of conjugal rights and in Petition No.E-382 of 2012 filed for maintenance under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She further admitted in the maintenance petition that the husband used to beat her mercilessly. Whenever he used to go on tour for his business, he used to drop her at her parent's house. Due to threats of life, the wife apprehending danger to her life, was required to leave the matrimonial home. Since 14.04.2012, she was living with her parents. She further averred that the husband was two times Corporator of Nagpur Municipal Corp
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.