Point of Law : It is settled that maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wife and children for their financial support; so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.

JUDGMENT :

1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant-wife.

2. A perusal of the order dated 04.10.2021 passed by this Court indicates that the parties had appeared in the Court personally but they have not been able to reconcile. The appeal, thus, has been posted for final disposal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

4. This is wife's appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.05.2006 whereby divorce decree had been passed in favour of the husband.

5. A perusal of the impugned order of the Family Court indicates that the decree of divorce had been granted on the premise that the wife had lodged a false complaint namely Case Crime No.6 of 2003 against the husband which had resulted in incarceration of the husband for 4 days and as such the wife had caused mental cruelty upon the husband. On account of the trauma, the mother of the respondent-husband had died. It was further noted that initially on the similar complaint sought to be filed by the wife, a compromise had been arrived between the parties in the police station and both the parties had reconciled with the intervention of the Station House Officer which made it evident that there was no serious dispute. However, the wife had turned around and contacted the Senior Superintendent of Police again to lodge the report on the allegations of demand of dowry. The Family Court has, thus, opined that the wife had exaggerated the whole matter and lodged a false complaint against the husband for demand of dowry. In such a situation, the marital relationship between the parties had been completely broken and the decree of divorce was liable to be granted.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband, has, defended the decree on the premise that there was no reasonable excuse with the wife to leave her matrimonial home after the compromise had been arrived between the parties with the intervention of wise persons and lastly the police. The wife was guilty of not honouring the terms of the compromise and leaving her matrimonial home without any reason.

7. It is further submitted that the appellant-wife was harassing the respondent and pressurising him to leave his mother alone and move to her paternal home. When the respondent-husband did not accede to the said request she had threatened him to lodge a false complaint and with dire consequences. On 21.11.2002, when the respondent-husband was at home, she had left the house with all jewellery, clothes and Rs.5,000/-without any information. In the proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, however, a compromise had been arrived between them on 09.02.2003 and thereafter, the wife had returned to her matrimonial home. But, again on 17.03.2003, she had left with all the clothes and jewellery in the absence of her husband and despite best efforts of the husband, she did not return and lodged a criminal case on the allegations of demand of dowry. On account of the said cruelty inflicted by his wife, the widow mother of the appellant had died which had resulted in severe mental cruelty to the respondent-husband and as such he was constrained to file the divorce suit.

8. Testing these submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent, having gone through the findings returned by the Family Court as also the statements of the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband, we may note that there are allegations and counter allegations of the parties against each other. On the one hand, the respondent husband had pleaded that his wife had left her matrimonial home without any reasonable excuse and she had taken all clothes and jewellery alongwith cash of Rs.5,000/-on 21.11.2002 when he was present in his house but there is no statement of the husband that he had tried to stop his wife from leaving her matrimonial home. After compromise between the parties, on 09.02.2003 the wife had returned to her matrimonial home. As per the version of the husband, the wife had left her matrimonial home