SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, Gauri Godse, JJ.
Mansi Bhavin Dharani - Appellant
Versus
Bhavin Jagdish Dharani – Respondent
Family Court Appeal No.24 of 2022 with Interim Application No.1854 of 2022
Decided On : 24-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Holambe Patil a/w Mr. Vishal G. Shirsat
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhishek L. Tripathi

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 151 - Order 12 - Rule 6 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - Family Court Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Divorce - Decreed - Appellant and Respondent got married according to provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Dispute arose between parties - There is a child out of said wedlock between parties - Appellant fled M.J. Petition No. inter alia praying that marriage between parties solemnized be dissolved by a decree of divorce and also prayed that Respondent be directed to pay maintenance of Rs.80,000/- per month to Petitioner and her son with cost of petition in favour of Petitioner - Said Petition was opposed by Respondent by fling written statement in month and allegations of cruelty and other allegations were made by Appellant against Respondent were denied - Whether orally or in writing Court may at any stage of suit, either on application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for determination of any other question between parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think ft, having regard to such admission - Whether proceedings are defended or not by any of the parties – Held, In view of fact that, there is a specific provision for passing decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC on satisfaction of conditions provided under the said provision, Family Court could not have invoked - Impugned order shows non application of mind on part of Family Court while passing decree of divorce by doing a guess work and without there being any evidence on record - Court have perused Application fled by Respondent for passing decree on admission without admitting allegations of cruelty made on part of Appellant in affidavit-in-reply, and also based on its own admission in Application, praying for passing of decree of divorce on admission and submitting to the decree in terms of prayer clause (a) of Petition - Situation would have been different in such case - Family Court Appeal is allowed in above terms - In view of disposal of Family Court Appeal, Interim Application does not survive and accordingly stands disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the Respondent.

2. Admit. Respondent waives service. By consent, taken up for final disposal.

3. By this Appeal fled under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 the original Petitioner (Appellant) challenges the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Mumbai dated 17th February, 2022 thereby passing a decree partially to the extent of prayer clause (a) and whereby the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent is dissolved under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The learned Family Court has however kept the Petition pending for the reliefs prayed in prayer clauses (b) and (c) to the Petition. So far as prayer clauses (b) and (c) are concerned, the clause (b) refers that the Respondent be directed to pay maintenance of Rs.80,000/- per month to Petitioner and her son; and clause (c) refers to costs of the present Petition to be granted in favour of the Petitioner.

4. The Appellant and Respondent got married on 14th July, 2013 according to the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The dispute arose between the parties on 11th January 2017. There is a child out of the said wedlock between the parties. The child is born on 24th July, 2017. In the month of November, 2017, the Appellant fled M.J. Petition No.A-3037 of 2017 inter alia praying that the marriage between the parties solemnized on 14th July, 2013 be dissolved by a decree of divorce and also prayed that the Respondent be directed to pay maintenance of Rs.80,000/- per month to Petitioner and her son with cost of the petition in favour of the Petitioner. The said Petition was opposed by the Respondent by fling written statement in the month of January 2019 and the allegations of cruelty and other allegations were made by the Appellant against the Respondent were denied. In the month of April, 2021, the Respondent fled the Application inter alia praying for passing a decree of divorce on admission and the Respondent submitting to the decree and prayer clause (a) of the Petition. The said Application was opposed by the Appellant (Original Petitioner) by fling reply on 8th February, 2022. The learned Family Court passed a decree in terms of prayer clause (a) on 17th February, 2022 which is impugned by the Appellant (original Petitioner) in this Family Court Appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the Appellant invited our attention to the written statement fled by the Respondent. Despite the allegation of cruelty made by the Appellant were denied by the Respondent, the Application was fled by the Respondent submitting to the decree of divorce on admission in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Petition. The Application was opposed by the Appellant by fling the affidavit-in-reply. He submitted that the Family Court could not have passed a decree in terms of prayer clause (a) on admission. Even though there were serious allegations of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the Respondent, which were disputed by the Respondent in the written statement and also in the Application fled by the Respondent for decree of divorce on admission, the learned Family Court passed a decree for divorce. He submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply fled by the Appellant apart from the allegations of cruelty, the Appellant had disputed that there was any uncondtional and unequivocal admission on the part of the Respondent for passing decree in terms of prayer clause (a).

6. Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand submitted that the marriage between both the parties was severed and not reconciled for quite sometime. He submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply to the Application fled by the Respondent, the Appellant had clearly admitted that at the point of passing the decree, the status of the Appellant and Respondent get severed as husband and wife. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the Appellant shall not be wife of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top