Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
A.S. Chandurkar, Pushpa V. Ganediwala, JJ.
Nitin - Appellant
Versus
Pushpa Nitin Bobade - Respondent
Family Court Appeal No. 358 of 2014
Decided On : 22-02-2021
Shri R.K. Thakkar, Advocate, for the Appellant / Shri A.B. Mirza, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that to obtain a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, the cruelty must be enduring, continuous, and profound in nature, and the evidence presented must be sufficient to establish the grounds for divorce.
Headnote:
Divorce - Family Law - Family Courts' Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Acts and Sections Referred: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 23(1)(d), Section 13(1)(ib), Section 13(1)(iii) - Summary: The court dismissed the husband's appeal for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The court found that the husband failed to prove enduring, continuous, and profound cruelty by the wife, and the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the grounds for divorce.
Fact of the Case:
The husband appealed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and other grounds. The wife denied the allegations and stated that the husband did not allow her to live peacefully and demanded divorce.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband failed to prove the case of divorce based on cruelty or any other ground. The evidence presented was insufficient to establish the grounds for divorce.
Issues: The main issue was whether the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty or any other ground.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the husband failed to prove enduring, continuous, and profound cruelty by the wife, and the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the grounds for divorce.
Final Decision: The appeal for divorce was dismissed, and the court found it bereft of any merits. The court also dismissed all pending civil applications.
JUDGMENT
Pushpa V Ganediwala, J. - This is the husband's appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts' Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 05/07/2011 in petition No. A-167/2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Akola whereby his petition for divorce came to be dismissed.
2. The facts necessary to decide the present appeal are as under :
i) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18/12/2000 at Amravati. Out of this wedlock, they have one son by name Lalit alias Rishikesh, born on 25/12/2001. The appellant/husband had a joint family consisting of a mother and a married brother.
ii) It is the case of the appellant/husband that when the respondent/wife came back after delivery on 09/04/2002 from her parental home, he noticed her strange behavior just like a mentally sick person. She would keep murmuring to herself. She would throw utensils. She would not sleep in the night and walk in the house. She would accuse the appellant / husband of having illicit relationship with her sister. The appellant/husband informed about her behavior to her parents, and accordingly her father came on 13/04/2002, and took her back to Amravati, and since then, the respondent/wife is residing with her parents.
iii) The appellant/husband further states that he went to Amravati on 15/04/2002 to meet the respondent/wife and their minor son, but the respondent/wife and her parents quarreled with him, and she refused to cohabit with him. He states two incidents; one is of 30/06/2003 when the respondent /wife visited the office of his brother, and abused him in his absence, and second is of 20/03/2007 when the respondent/wife forcibly entered his house in his absence thereby assaulted and abused his mother. Reports were lodged accordingly. It is further the case of the appellant/husband that he made numerous efforts to fetch the respondent/wife, but all efforts are gone in vain. Lastly, he states that the conduct and behavior of the respondent/wife was only to harass him. Under the circumstances, he prayed for dissolution of his marriage.
iv) The respondent/wife, in her written statement at Exh. 12, denied all the adverse allegations with regard to harassment. However, she admitted that after delivery, she went back to her matrimonial house on 09/04/2002. She states that the appellant/husband did not allow her to live peacefully. He used to pick up quarrels at the instigation of his mother. He used to abuse and beat her on the issue of dowry. Once the appellant/husband called her father, and quarreled with him, and also demanded divorce. She also states one incident of demand of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs) on the pretext that her father received a handsome amount in lieu of retiral benefits. Lastly, she states that their friends and relatives tried to settle their dispute, however, the appellant/husband was adamant and wanted divorce. Under these circumstances she prayed for dismissal of the petition.
v) The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and recorded evidence as adduced by the parties. The attempts were also made to reconcile their dispute through mediation process as well as through marriage counselor, but in vain. The appellant/husband examined himself at Exh. 37, while the respondent/wife examined herself at Exh. 52. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties and on the basis of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant/ husband has failed to prove the case of divorce. This judgment of the learned trial Court is impugned in this appeal.
3. We have heard Shri Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the respondent. We have also perused the record with the assistance of both the learned counsel.
4. The following point arose for determination of this Court:
Is the appellant/husband entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty or any other ground?
5. At the outset, a perusal of the pleadings and the evidence in support of the pleadings would reflect
