IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.S. CHANDURKAR, G.A. SANAP, JJ.
Abha W/o Nitin @ Ganesh Rakatsinge - Appellant
Versus
Nitin @ Ganesh Rakatsinge - Respondent
F.C.A. Nos. 26 and 25 of 2015
Decided on : 10-12-2012
Divorce - Cruelty and Desertion - [DIVORCE] - [FAMILY LAW] - [Indian Penal Code, Section 498-A, 506], [Indian Penal Code, Section 13(1)(i-a)], [AIR 1994 SC 710], [Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73], [Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli (Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2004)], [Praveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta (AIR 2002 SC 2582)], [Sujata Uday Patil vs. Uday Madhukar Patil (2007 AIR SCW 896)] - The court discussed the grounds of cruelty and desertion in the context of divorce, emphasizing the need for specific pleading and concrete evidence to prove these grounds. The judgment highlighted the importance of scrutinizing the evidence and considering the sincerity of the parties in preserving the marriage. The court found that the evidence presented by the appellant was insufficient to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion, and upheld the judgment and decree of the Family Court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two appeals concerning divorce and restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant sought divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, while the respondent sought restitution of conjugal rights. The parties had a history of litigation and were involved in an inter-caste love marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the appellant was insufficient to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It emphasized the importance of specific pleading and concrete evidence in divorce cases. The court upheld the judgment and decree of the Family Court, dismissing both appeals.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant had proven the grounds of cruelty and desertion for divorce, and whether the judgment and decree for restitution of conjugal rights were sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific pleading and concrete evidence to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion in divorce cases. It also highlighted the importance of scrutinizing the evidence and considering the sincerity of the parties in preserving the marriage.
Final Decision: Both Family Court Appeals were dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the Family Court in both petitions were upheld. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT :
G.A. SANAP, J.
In both these appeals the parties are same and therefore, these two appeals are disposed of by common Judgment. The Family Court Appeal No. 25 of 2015 is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Petition No. A-203 of 2013 whereby, the Family Court granted the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, as prayed by the respondent. The Family Court Appeal No. 26 of 2015 is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Petition No. A-962 of 2011 whereby, the Family Court rejected the decree for divorce, as prayed by the appellant.
2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows :
3. It is the case of the appellant, that prior to 5-10-2006, she was working as ‘Medical Practitioner’ with Charitable Trust-Bhauji Daftari Smarak Trust at Mahal, Nagpur. As far as the allegations of cruelty is concerned, according to the appellant, the family members of the respondent compelled her to do all household work alone. They did not engage maid/servant. The household work of washing utensils, clothes, sweeping and mopping was below the dignity and status of the appellant, being a Medical Practitioner. The family members of the respondent used to continuously criticize and taunt the appellant inasmuch as the marriage between the appellant and respondent was inter-caste marriage. The appellant was subjected to insult and humiliation by the respondent and his family members. The grievance made by the appellant to the respondent, about her miseries and agonies, fell on deaf ear. On the contrary, the respondent told her that due to their inter caste marriage, they were unable to find a suitable match for his sister. The appellant would, therefore, be required to tolerate and bear with the situation. The appellant was conceived in January-February, 2007. It is the case of the appellant that during her first pregnancy, she was tortured and humiliated. During this period of her pregnancy she was subjected to insurmountable cruelty. It is stated that due to the stress and depression, there was miscarriage. On 25-6-2007, the family members came to know that it was a male fetus. Therefore, the harassment and cruelty was increased. They blamed the appellant for the miscarriage. They told her that the father of the respondent-Nitin, who expired on 25-12-2000 was destined to take rebirth in the family. The respondent and his family members cursed the appellant for denying them an opportunity of company of the father of the respondent on re-birth. However, the medical check up revealed that the abortion was caused due to the ‘Rubella infection’. It is stated that they bla
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.