BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A.S. Oka and A.A. Sayed, JJ.
Christine Lazarus Menezes —Appellant
versus
Lazarus Peter Menezes —Respondent
Family Court Appeal No.150 of 2008 a/w Criminal Revision Application No.68 of 2008
Decided on 21.4.2017
For the Appellant:Mr Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Jeet Gandhi and Ms. Varsha Bhogle i/b Shri. D.R. Shah Advocates
For the Respondent:Smt. Prabha Badadare, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Averments in Written Statement and undisputed evidence on record of subsequent events after filing of Petition for divorce, can be taken into consideration in determining whether grounds of divorce are made out.
Headnote:Family Law—Divorce—Cruelty by spouse—Averments in Written Statement and undisputed evidence on record of subsequent events after filing of Petition for divorce, can be taken into consideration in determining whether grounds of divorce are made out—No interference called for with impugned order of Family Court in allowing petition for divorce of husband on ground of cruelty—However, insofar as ground of desertion is concerned, husband is not entitled to dissolution of marriage on that count—Marriage between husband and wife shall stand dissolved on ground of cruelty and impugned order of Family Court upheld to that extent—Impugned order of Family Court granting decree of dissolution of marriage on ground of desertion shall stand set aside. (Paras 14 and 28)
Result: Family Court Appeal Partly allowed and Civil Revision Application dismissed.
A.A. Sayed, J.—The above Family Court Appeal and Civil Revision Application are filed by the Appellant/Applicant/wife challenging the common judgment and order dated 26 May 2008 passed by the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, in Petition No.A-1162/2005 and Petition No.E-187/2005. Petition No.A-1162/2005 was filed by the Respondent/husband for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty under sections 10(ix) and (x) respectively of the Divorce Act, 1869. Petition No.E-187/2005 was filed by the Appellant/Applicant/wife for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The operative part of the impugned common judgment of the Family Court reads as under:
‘ORDER
Petition No.A-1162/2005:
Petition is allowed with costs.
The marriage between the Petitioner-Lazarus Peter Menezes and the respondent-Christine Lazarus Menazes solemnized on 28-12-1987 is hereby dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage.
Decree be drawn up accordingly.
Petition No.E-187/2005:
The Petition is partly allowed.
As regards the claim of maintenance of the Petitioner is concerned, it is rejected.
The Respondent shall pay Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the daughters payable from the date of this order.
He shall pay Rs.2,000/- to her towards cost and bear his own.’ Both, the Family Court Appeal as well as the Civil Revision Application, are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. They were married according to Christian rites and customs on 28-12- 1987. Both were residing in the same building and fell in love with each other and decided to get married. At the time of marriage the husband was an electrical contractor and the wife was working as a clerk in a school at Bandra. They were blessed with two daughters born on 28-9- 1988 and 8-5-1990 respectively. In or about 1989, the husband got a job as Electrician in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL).
3. Common evidence was recorded by the Family Court in the husband’s Petition for divorce and the wife’s Petition for maintenance. The husband has examined himself. The wife examined herself and 3 witnesses in support of her case. After hearing the parties, the Family Court allowed the Petition of the husband and passed a decree of dissolution of marriage between the parties on the grounds of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’ and partly allowed the Petition of the wife by granting maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to each of the two daughters and rejected the prayer of maintenance to the wife, as indicated in paragraph 1 hereinabove.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel have taken us through the pleadings and evidence recorded by the Family Court.
Family Court Appeal No.150 of 2008
5. The issues framed and answered by the Family Court in respect of the husband’s Petition No.A-1162/2005 seeking divorce, were recorded as under:
Issues Findings
1) Does the Petitioner prove that the Respondent has deserted him for at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the Petition? In the Affirmative
2) Does the Petitioner prove that the Respondent has treated him with cruelty? In the Affirmative
3) Is he entitled for a decree of divorce? In the Affirmative
4) Whether the Petitioner be declared as an exclusive owner and in possession of the Flat 45/2219, Samadhan CHS Ltd. Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 of his matrimonial house and row house No.17 at Ashwini Residency, Sansodo Raia Salcette, Goa and that the Respondent has no right or claim to sell away or dispose of the same without prior written consent of the Petitioner?
OR in the alternative
Whether the Petitioner be declared the joint owner and in possession with Respondent in Flat 45/2219, Samadhan CHS Ltd. Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 and row house No.17 at Ashwini Residency, Sansodo Raia Salcette, Goa of his matrimonial house and that R