IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Divorce – Cruelty can be held as proved depending on conduct complained of, which if found grave and weighty sufficient to come to conclusion that spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with partner.
(2) Streedhan - Whether wife receives gold ornaments from her parents or her in-laws, gold ornaments received in marriage by wife becomes her streedhan.

JUDGMENT

M.M. Sathaye, J.—This Appeal is filed by Appellant/husband challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 07th June, 2021 passed by Family Court No. 7, Mumbai in Petition No. A-2223 of 2012 filed by Respondent/wife in the Family Court at Mumbai, thereby dissolving marriage between the parties u/s. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and further directing the husband to return streedhan of wife, which is mortgaged with the DNS bank, Gangapur Road, Nasik, within specific time.

2. The Appellant/husband also filed Family Court Appeal No. 68 of 2021, challenging Judgment and Decree dated 07.06.2021 passed by Family Court No. 7 Mumbai dismissing his Petition No. A-3047 of 2016 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was heard by this Court on 13.07.2022, when a statement was made on behalf of the present Appellant that he does not want to seek restitution of conjugal rights and therefore, Family Court Appeal No. 68 of 2021 was dismissed.

3. The Appellant / Husband had filed I. A. No. 1878 of 2020 and I. A. No. 20330 of 2022, praying for permission to lead additional evidence and remand of the matter to the Trial Court. By Order dated 13.01.2023, this Court, after hearing both sides, directed that such documents which are produced along with Applications which were forming part of the Trial Court record, prior to impugned Judgment and Decree dated 07.06.2021, will be considered, subject to their evidentiary value and rest of the documents, subsequent to 07.06.2021, will not be considered. With this Order in force we have proceeded to hear the Appeal finally with consent of parties, since both sides have produced compilation of Trial Court record.

4. It is important to note that even when the Appellant/ Husband does not want restitution of conjugal rights, he has chosen to file and prosecute this Appeal challenging the Decree of Divorce.

Case:

5. Brief facts of the case, necessary for disposal of this Appeal are as below.

6. On 26.09.2012, the Respondent/Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. It is the contention of Respondent/wife that on 12th December 2008, marriage took place between the parties at Nasik as per Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, the Appellant/husband was in service at YES Bank. The wife’s parents gave 15 Tolas of gold ornaments and bared 75% of marriage expenses. After marriage, the Respondent-wife started cohabitation with the Appellant-husband at the matrimonial house, located at Sonali Apartment, Vise Mala, College Road, at Nashik. It is contended that since beginning, the behaviour of the Appellant-husband was not proper and he always showed disliking for the wife. The husband used to return late to home and had a habit of drinking liquor. The husband was careless, would drink and abuse her daily.

7. It is contended that the Appellant/husband used to suspect the character of the wife and often quarrel with her. It is contended that the Appellant/husband was very rude, used filthy language and was not interested in keeping any relations with her. It is contended that after drinking alcohol the Husband used to be wild and aggressive and one day broke a mirror in the house in a feat of rage. This really frightened the Wife. The wife waited in the hope that the Appellant’s behaviour will improve, but in vain. Since the Respondent/wife had already appeared for exam and cleared physical tests, she then joined police academy for training.

8. On 14th April, 2011, the husband, under the influence of liquor visited the academy where the wife was taking training and created scene using filthy language. It is contended that after completing training, Respondent/wife assumed her duties at Borivali Police Station, Mumbai. After coming to Mumbai, the Appellant started taking more doubts on wife’s character and continu