FCA70.15(j)

1/11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.70 OF 2015

Thalraj @ Anand s/o Jaisingh Khinchi, .. APPELLANT

Aged about 34 years, Occu. : Unemployed.

R/o Binaki Mangalwari, Near Cattlepond,

Rani Durgawati Square, Gayatri Sadan, Plot No.10,

Nagpur.

-vs-

Sau. Jyoti w/o Thalraj @ Anand Khinchi,

..RESPONDENT

name before marriage : Jyoti d/o Bajrangsingh Chauvan,

Uccha Prathmik Shala, Chankapur,

Khaparkheda, Tq. Saoner, District Nagpur.

Through its Education Officer (Prarthmik) Zilla Parishad,

Nagpur.

……..

Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate for appellant.

Shri A.B.Bambal, Advocate for respondent.

……...

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATED : 10^th February, 2021.

Judgment : (Per A.S.Chandurkar, J.)

This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,

1984 by the husband takes exception to the decree for divorce passed by

the Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No. A-459/2012 on 25.09.2014.

2.

The facts in brief are that the appellant and the respondent

were married on 27.04.2008. Out of the said wedlock a child was born on

03.03.2009. Thereafter the appellant and his family members started ill-

FCA70.15(j)

2/11

treating the respondent. During Diwali-2010, the family members of the

appellant quarreled with the respondent and after taking away all the gold

articles she was driven away from the matrimonial house. On 06.12.2010

she filed proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for

restitution of conjugal rights. These proceedings however were withdrawn

on 25.04.2012. Thereafter on 14.05.2012 the wife filed Petition No.A-

459/2012 seeking a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. In

the said proceedings it was alleged that the appellant and his family

members were ill-treating the respondent physically as well as mentally.

The respondent used to be abused time and again by the appellant and his

family members as a result of which there were frequent quarrels between

them and the respondent was also beaten on some occasions. She was

required to do all the household work and other family members did not

help her in that work. The respondent was required to approach Mahila

Cell with her grievances and after understanding given to both the parties,

they started residing together. However this arrangement did not

continue for long. The respondent after finding it unsafe to continue the

relationship filed the present proceedings.

3.

In the written statement filed by the appellant the allegations

as made were denied. It was denied that there was any occasion to

appear before the Mahila Cell and give any undertaking as pleaded by the

FCA70.15(j)

3/11

respondent. It was also pleaded that the appellant’s sister was residing on

the ground floor and the allegations made against her about ill-treating

the respondent were denied. In the specific pleading it was stated that the

respondent and her family members belonged to ‘Rajput’ caste but they

had obtained spurious caste certificate of belonging to ‘Rajput Bhamta’ for

securing employment.

4.

The parties led evidence before the Family Court and after

considering the same the learned Judge of the Family Court held that the

respondent had proved that the appellant was treating with her cruelty. It

was further held that the allegation of desertion was not proved since

continuous period of not less than two years prior to filing of the divorce

petition had not elapsed. Hence by the impugned judgment, the Family

Court proceeded to pass a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.

Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the allegations with regard to cruelty being inflicted by the appellant

were not duly proved by the respondent. He referred to the evidence on

record to contend that except normal wear and tear of marital life there

w