IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2908 of 2019 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2908 of 2019 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Sd/-

and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Sd/-

================================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No 

================================================================

NILESHBHAI JONBHAI MEKWAN Versus PRITIBEN D/O ARNESHTBHAI CHRISTIAN ================================================================

Appearance:

MR AS ASTHAVADI(3698) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR A A ZABUAWALA(6823) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ROMESH C NIVEN(9064) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 11/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)

1. Captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.04.2019 passed by the Family Court in Family Suit No. 42 of 2018 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 82 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned judgment"), whereby the Family Suit No. 42 of 2018 is allowed and the marriage solemnized on 08.11.2007 is dissolved. So far as the Criminal Misc. Application No. 82 of 2018 filed by the respondent is concerned, the same is rejected, against which no appeal is preferred.

2. Mr A. S. Asthavadi, learned advocate, while inviting the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of the respondent- wife, submitted that a reference is made of interaction which took place before marriage, when both the parties were trying to know about their nature. In the question posed, it is categorically stated by the respondent that she is short tempered and gets emotional. It is submitted that considering the sensitive nature of the respondent, it is difficult to believe the allegations levelled by her against the appellant-husband. Therefore, the respondent herself is responsible for the separation. While inviting the attention of this Court to the plaint, it is submitted that in paragraph 3, allegations are made against the appellant about the demands, which is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, the evidence produced would suggest that the respondent, instead of staying with the husband, was determined to stay separately.

2.1 It is further submitted that initially the respondent was serving at Nadiad; however, she secured a job in Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital, Ahmedabad where, initially, she was appointed on contractual basis and was subsequently confirmed and possibly because of the fact that the respondent was earning more as compared to the appellant, she desired for separation inasmuch as, the complaint is filed in the year 2018. Normally the confirmation of contractual employment is upon completion of five years of service. As she joined in 2013, five years would get over in 2018 and hence, upon her confirmation in the year 2018, she filed the complaint. The incident was only an excuse, inasmuch as, the alleged incident took place on 07.03.2018, and thereafter another on 10.03.2018 and on 13.03.2018, the application was filed. Therefore, barring two incidents; first on 07.03.2018 and another on 10.03.2018, there are no other incidents. Except the alleged incident that took place at the railway station, there are no other incidents, notified by her which fact, is accepted by her in her own deposition. Only on the basis of one remote incident, the divorce is allowed. It is submitted that marriage is a sacred institution and as far as possible the parties to the marriage should put all the endeavors to save the institution.

2.2 It is submitted that the witness of the respondent - Mr Swetal Joseph Christian was examined at Exh. 35; however, considering the nature of his deposition, it is untrustworthy for, it is stated that he was at the distance of 80 feet. It is difficult