IN
fca13.08
1
C
ou
BENCHATAURANGABAD
rt
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
FAMILYCOURTAPPEALNO.13OF2008
ig
h
Dr.XHusband
...APPELLANT
(Orig.Petitioner)
VERSUS
Dr.YWife
...RESPONDENT
ba
y
...
Mr.P.M.Shah,SeniorCounselwithMr.Amol
N.KakadeAdvocateforAppellantHusband.
Mr.V.D.SapkalAdvocateforRespondentWife.
...
CORAM:R.M.BORDEAND
A.I.S.CHEEMA,JJ.
om
DATEOFRESERVINGJUDGMENT:9thDECEMBER,2015
DATEOFPRONOUNCINGJUDGMENT:21stJANUARY,2016
JUDGMENT[PERA.I.S.CHEEMA,J.]:
1.
husbandanOphthalmologist(hereafterreferredas
"Petitioner"), whose Petition fordivorce against
the Respondent wife B.H.M.S. practicing
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
2
rt
C
ou
hasbeendismissedbytheFamilyCourt,Aurangabad
inPetitionNo.A.263of2006.Keepinginviewthe
nature of dispute, we have blocked the names of
thepartiesinthecausetitle.
ig
h
2.
livedtogetherhappilyforsometimeandthendue
to disputes, the Petitioner claims that the
ba
y
Respondentdesertedhimon30thDecember2003.The
Respondentclaimsthatshewasbeatenandleftat
the place of her parents on 4th December 2003.
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
3
rt
presentPetitionNo.A.263of2006cametobefiled
C
ou
3.
ig
h
parties,itisnownecessarytoreferthefactsin
somemoredetails.
ba
y
EARLIERPETITIONNO.A.46OF2004
Exhibit52iscopyoftheearlier
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
4
rt
C
ou
more.AsRespondentandherpaternaluncle
ig
h
ba
y
cometotheresidenceofthePetitionerand
quarreled. The marriage was happy for few
days.LateronRespondentwasnotbehaving
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
5
rt
Petitionerandleftthehouseallegingthat
C
ou
Petitioner hadrelationswiththatfriend.
Shewasbackansweringelderlypersonsand
ig
h
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
claimeddivorce.
WITHDRAWALOFEARLIERPETITION:
ThePetitionerfiledapplication(Exhibit
ig
h
4.
C
ou
rt
Respondenthasnowfiledcriminalcomplaintandhe
wanted to withdraw the Petition to file fresh
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
hadbeengranted.
C
ou
PRESENTPETITIONNO.A.263OF2006
rt
5.
SubsequentlythepresentdivorcePetition
ig
h
ba
y
om
claimedthataftertheearlierPetitionwas
filed,noticewasissuedtoRespondentand
it was served on her. Thereafter she came
tothePetitionerandgavethreatsthatshe
willfilefalsecriminalcaseunderSection
498A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.)
againsthimandhisfamilymembers.On25th
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
8
rt
February2004whenPetitionerwasgoingon
C
ou
Colony,theRespondentstoppedhimandgave
suchthreats.Shealsothreatenedthatshe
will commit suicide and implicate him and
ig
h
hisfamilymembersandputtheminjail.On
26th February 2004 she came to the clinic
ofthePetitionerandinfrontofpatients
abusedandthreatenedhim.Inviewofsuch
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
9
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
Petitionerandhisfamilymemberssuffered
great hardship. The Petitioner and his
brotherVijaywerearrestedandthereafter
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
10
rt
C
ou
ig
h
caseandatthestageofargumentsevengot
thecasetransferredvideTransferPetition
ba
y
No.68of2006makingavermentsagainstthe
Judicial Officer. The Petitioner and his
family members came to be acquitted. The
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
11
DEFENCE
6.
C
ou
divorcePetition.
rt
ig
h
StatementvideExhibit40.Weproceedtoreferto
thosefactsinbrief,aspleadedbytheRespondent
intheWrittenStatement:
ba
y
om
parentsspentRupeesSixtyThousandsonthe
engagement.Themarriagewasfixedfor29th
December2002butthePetitionerwantedto
finish up the marriage ceremony in simple
and economical manner. For saving Rupees
Two Lakhs, parents of Respondent agreed.
TheygavegarlandoffiveTolagoldtoher
andremainingtenTolagoldwastobegiven
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
12
rt
C
ou
ig
h
wastakingsuspicionorthatshequarreled
on that count. She claims that the elder
ba
y
om
HerfatherwasservinginS.T.Department.
She has two sisters, one brother and
mother. She comes from religious, social,
cultural background. She never threatened
PetitionerwithcaseunderSection498Aof
I.P.C.andsheisfrommedicalsideandnot
legal side. The earlier Petition was
withdrawnasPetitionerhadfiledboguspan
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
13
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
withdrawthePetition,shewasbeatenwhen
she was attending patients and her thumbs
werefracturedbythePetitioner.Although
both her thumbs were fractured by the
Petitioner, she did not go to private
doctorasshedidnotwanttodisclosethe
deeds of her husband. She went to Ghati
hospitalwherepolicemadeoutMedicoLegal
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
14
rt
C
ou
498AofI.P.C.asthePetitionerhusband
had demanded Rupees Two Lakhs and fifteen
Tola gold from her parents. She claimed
thatthePetitionerandhisfamilymembers
got acquitted as they managed the police
ig
h
andpressurizedpoliceprosecutor.Shehas
preferredappealtotheHighCourt.
IntheWritten Statement,further
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
15
rt
C
ou
ig
h
complexwherehewaspracticing.Evenprior
to marriage, believing Petitioner, she
ba
y
om
asloantosetuptheclinic.Shegotthe
loan after engagement ceremony had taken
place. Petitioner asked her to shift her
practice in the same clinic where he was
practicing.Shespenttheamountinsetting
upboththeclinics.PetitionertookRupees
Seventy Thousand from the loan which was
sanctioned to her and spent it on his
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
16
rt
C
ou
NinetyFiveThousandwerestilloutstanding
from the said loan amount. After marriage
ig
h
SujaystartedclaimingthatPetitionerwas
highly qualified and could have got big
ba
y
hutment.Sheclaimsthathermotherinlaw
and sisterinlaw started quarreling with
her that she does not know cooking and
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
17
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
18
rt
C
ou
don'tneedher.Petitionerusedtobemute
ig
h
butwasdeniedentryandwasaskedtobring
fifteen Tola gold and Rupees Two Lakhs.
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
19
C
ou
rt
litemaintenance.
ig
h
ba
y
relatedto,whethertherewasbarunderSection23
of the Hindu Marriage Act. Parties brought on
record necessary evidence. Petitioner examined
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
20
rt
thePetitionerinCriminalCase,assentbyherto
C
ou
policethatthemarriagewaswillful,wasforged.
Respondent examined RW3 Ravindra Sangavikar,
employee from Bank regarding loan she had taken.
(Although question of maintenance was not being
decided).SubRegistrarSahebKhanwasexamined
ig
h
ba
y
wasexaminedtoproveTipanExhibit168thatwhen
theengagementtookplace,marriagewasinitially
scheduledfor27thDecember2012.
om
stationdiaryentrywasthere.RW6SatishPurohit
8.
TheFamily Courtconsideredtheevidence
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
21
rt
C
ou
andthathehadalsofailedtoprovethatshehad
desertedhimwithoutreasonablecause.TheFamily
CourtobservedthatquestionofbarunderSection
23 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not survive.
Family Court concluded that Petitioner was not
ig
h
entitledfordecreeofdivorce.
9.
ARUGMENTSFORPETITIONERAPPELLANT:
Against the Judgment, present Family
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
22
rt
C
ou
ig
h
summonsintheearlierpetition.Petitionerproved
howhewasabusedandthreatenedon26thFebruary
2004and28thFebruary2004andsubsequentlyfalse
criminal case was filed. Because of the criminal
ba
y
om
bailpetition,duringthecourseofwhichhearing,
the Respondent appeared with bandaged hands to
prejudice the Court. Ithas been argued that the
Respondent made all endeavours to put the
Petitionerandhisfamilymembersbehindbarsall
the while making false allegations. Although it
was pleaded that her thumbs were fractured, in
evidence she accepted that they were not
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
23
rt
C
ou
havingM.B.B.S.Themarriagetookplacewithfull
knowledge of the background of the Respondent.
Wildallegationsofmiscarriageweremadewithout
ig
h
anymedicalevidencebeingbroughtonrecord.Dr.
Mrs. Mahindrakar was not examined. Family Court
failedtoseethattheprivatehandwritingexpert
examined, had relied only on xerox copies, which
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
24
rt
C
ou
ig
h
10.
impugnedmatter.
ba
y
disputedthecorrectnessofthedocumentsrelating
totheJudgmentsandorderspassedorapplications
moved. The counsel have referred to the said
om
ARGUMENTSFORRESPONDENT:
11.
OnbehalfoftheRespondent,thelearned
counselreferredtoSubRules(3)and(4)ofOrder
XXIIIRule1oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,1908
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
25
rt
(C.P.C.)toarguethatiftheearlierPetitionwas
C
ou
withdrawnwithouttakingpermissionreferredtoin
Sub Rule (3), the Petitioner would be precluded
frominstitutinganyfreshsuitinrespectofthe
subjectmatterorpartoftheclaim.Itisargued
that the earlier Petition wasfor divorce on the
ig
h
groundofcrueltyandpresentPetitionisalsofor
divorce onthe ground ofcruelty. Asthe earlier
ba
y
theHighCourtintheearlierAppeal,thepresent
Petition was barred. Learned counsel agreed that
theobservationofthetrialCourtinPara50of
om
itsJudgmentthatthepresentPetitionwashitby
the principles of 'res judicata' was not
maintainable,asearlierPetitionwasnotdecided
onmerits,butaccordingtohimthebarisunder
Order XXIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C., which is
applicable. It is argued by the Respondent that
due to withdrawal of the earlier matter, the
Respondent was unable to prove her defence which
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
26
rt
C
ou
groundsraisedfordivorcearegeneralandvague.
The Respondent denied in her written statement
that she was suspecting cousin sister of the
Petitioner. According to the learned counsel,
there was no evidence that the Respondent was
ig
h
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
27
rt
C
ou
ofthemarriage,whichshowedthatthehusbandwas
notinterestedinmaintainingthemarriage.
INREPLY:
12.
ThelearnedcounselforthePetitionerin
ig
h
replysubmittedthatwhenintheearlierPetition
the Petitioner had filed application for
ba
y
granted,whatCourtcouldhavedonewastorefuse
thepermissionbuttheCourtcouldnothavesimply
disposed the Petition as withdrawn. He however,
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
28
rt
tookplacesubsequenttothefilingoftheearlier
C
ou
ig
h
presentPetitioncannotbesaidtobebasedonthe
same subject matter as in the present Petition,
ba
y
thesetoffactsreliedonaredifferentandcause
of action is also different. According to the
counsel, subsequent to filing of the earlier
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
29
rt
divorcepetitiononthegroundofcrueltyhasbeen
C
ou
withdrawnfurtherdivorcepetitioncannotbefiled
even if there are subsequent events showing
cruelty.Thecounselsubmittedthattherecordand
proceedings of Family Court show that the
Respondent resorted to raising various
ig
h
ba
y
beingdecidedandincrossexaminationtherewere
multiple repetitions. Although the Respondent
claimsnottobeapersonoflaw,shecarriedout
om
extensivecrossexaminationofthePetitioner,in
person, on 9th July 2007, 10th July 2007, 21st
July 2007 and 12th October 2007. She has legal
acumen and is not a lay person and the evidence
has not been properly appreciated by the Family
Court.
13.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
30
rt
C
ou
complaintdated4thSeptember2007whichdiscloses
that Respondent filed complaint to the Police
Commissioner against Head Constable Adhane
claiming that hehad given false evidence in the
ig
h
ba
y
PetitionerfurthersubmittedthatRespondentfiled
applicationExhibit12inthePetitionbeforethe
Family Court claiming domestic violence and even
om
securedsomeordersinherfavouron11thJanuary
2007.SubsequentlyshefiledCriminalM.A.No.130
of 2008 under Domestic Violence Act before the
J.M.F.C. on 4th February 2008 and thereafter on
10th March 2008 withdrew the application under
Section26oftheDomesticViolenceActwhichshe
had filed before the Family Court. This Criminal
M.A.No.130of2008containingsimilarallegations
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
31
rt
asmadebeforetheFamilyCourt,hasalsocometo
on31stDecember2012.
14.
C
ou
bedismissedby19thCourtofJ.M.F.C.,Aurangabad
Beforeproceedingtodiscussthefactsof
ig
h
RULINGS:
ba
y
15.
bothsidestosupporttheiraverments.
om
cases:
(A) LearnedcounselforthePetitionerreliedon
the case of X husband vs. Y wife, reported in
2014(4) Bom.C.R. 168 to submit that this Court
had,inthatmatter,takennoteofhowthewifein
that matter also had subjected the husband to
various criminal proceedings in a bitter legal
battle and this Court had held that filing of
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
32
rt
falsecriminalcasesagainstaspouseisitselfan
C
ou
actofcrueltyandcanverywellsustainadecree
ofdivorce.
(B) ThePetitionerfurtherreliedonthecaseof
Vishwanath Agrawal s/o Sitaram agrawal vs. Sarla
ig
h
ba
y
om
47.Anotheraspectneedstobetakennoteof.
Therespondent hadmadeallegationaboutthe
demandofdowry.RCCNo.133/95wasinstituted
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
against the husband, fatherinlaw and other
relatives. They have been acquitted in that
case. The said decision of acquittal has not
been assailed before thehigher forum. Hence,
theallegationonthiscountwasincorrectand
untruthfulanditcanunhesitatinglybestated
thatsuchanactcreatesmentaltraumainthe
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
33
rt
C
ou
baselessanduntruthfulallegations.
Hon'bleSupremeCourtobservedasfollows:
ig
h
54.Regardbeinghadtotheaforesaid,wehave
to evaluate the instances. In our considered
opinion, a normal reasonable man is bound to
feel the sting and the pungency. The conduct
ba
y
om
madewildallegationsabouthischaracter.She
hadmadeanefforttoprosecutehimincriminal
litigationswhichshehadfailedtoprove.The
feelingofdeepanguish,disappointment,agony
andfrustrationofthehusbandisobvious.
55. It can be stated with certitude that the
cumulative effect of the evidence brought on
recordclearlyestablishesasustainedattitude
of causing humiliation and calculated torture
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
34
rt
onthepartofthewifetomakethelifeofthe
husbandmiserable.Thehusbandfelthumiliated
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
catharticeffectlookedlikeadistantmirage.
Thecruelbehaviourofthewifehasfrozenthe
emotionsandsnuffedoutthebright candle of
feeling of the husband because he has been
om
(C).
ThecounselforPetitionerreliedonthe
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
35
rt
reportedinAIR2009S.C.2463 tosubmitthatthe
C
ou
Judgmentinacriminalcaseisadmissibletoprove
convictionoracquittal.Learnedcounselsubmitted
that Judgment in this matter shows that when in
thecivilmatteradmissionisgivenregardingwhat
wasstatedinthecriminalcase,thesamewouldbe
ig
h
ba
y
policeon29thNovember2002,butshestillbacked
out from the signature in the civil proceedings
and even led evidence of handwriting expert to
om
(D)
reliedonthecaseof MalathiRavi,M.D.vs.B.V.
Ravi, M.D., reported in (2014) 7 Supreme Court
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
36
rt
Cases640 tosubmitthateveninthecasebrought
C
ou
"43.
ig
h
thatmatterandobservedinPara43asunder:
Aswehaveenumeratedtheincidents,
wearedisposedtothinkthatthehusbandhas
ba
y
om
somekindofmalechauvinism,hisparentsand
he areignored inthenaming ceremony of the
son, and he comes to learn from others that
thewifehadgonetoGulbargatoprosecuteher
studies.Thatapart,thecommunications,after
thedecreeforrestitutionofconjugalrights,
indicatetheattitudeofthewifeasifsheis
playing a game of chess. The launching of
criminalprosecutioncanbeperceivedfromthe
spectrum of conduct. The learned Magistrate
has recorded the judgment of acquittal. The
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
37
rt
C
ou
Butsheintends,asthepleadingswouldshow,
that the case should reach the logical
ig
h
givewaytosadstoryoflife."
Thelearnedcounselsubmitted thatfacts
ba
y
om
(E).
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
38
rt
C
ou
in(2013)5SupremeCourtCases,226.InPara28
of the Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observedasunder:
ig
h
registeredacaseunderSection498AIPC.The
appellanthusbandandhisparentshadtoapply
for anticipatory bail, which was granted to
them. Later,therespondentwifewithdrew the
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
39
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
(F).
LearnedcounselforthePetitionerrelied
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
40
rt
thematterofSamarGhoshvs.JayaGhosh,reported
C
ou
ig
h
submittedthatinthepresentmatteralsothewife
canbeheldresponsibleforinflictingcrueltyto
ba
y
herhusband.
(G)
om
OrderXXIIIRule1ofC.P.C.,thelearnedcounsel
16.
SupremeCourtinthematterof N.R.NarayanSwamy
vs.B.FrancisJagan,reportedin(2001)6Supreme
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
41
rt
C
ou
observedinPara10asunder:
ig
h
Inasuitforevictionofatenantunderthe
Rent Act
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
42
rt
reliefclaimedinthesecondsuitarethesame
C
ou
asinthefirstsuit,itcannotbesaidthat
the subjectmatter of the second suit is the
sameasthatintheprevioussuit.
17.
LearnedcounselfortheRespondentplaced
(A)
ig
h
relianceonthefollowingReportedCases:
ba
y
om
secondPetitionasitwasonsamecauseofaction.
(B).
ThelearnedcounselforRespondentrelied
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
43
rt
C
ou
divorcecanbesoughtunderSection13(1)ofHindu
MarriageAct,1955wouldrevealthatthesameare
groundsbasedonthe'fault'ofthepartyagainst
whomdissolutionofmarriageissought.Theparty
seeking divorce should be innocent. It is argued
ig
h
(C)
innocent.
ThelearnedcounselforRespondentrelied
ba
y
om
ofmarriage isnotavailableascarvingoutsuch
groundwouldamounttolegislating.
POINTSFORCONSIDERATION:
18.
Consideringthevariouspleadings ofthe
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
44
rt
C
ou
(2)WhetherthePetitionerhasprovedthat
ig
h
theRespondenthas,aftersolemnizationof
the marriage, treated the Petitioner with
ba
y
divorce?
WHETHERPRESENTPETITIONWASMAINTAINABLE:
19.
AsregardsfirstPointforDetermination,
om
referencemaybemadetoOrderXXIIIRule1Sub
Rule (3) and (4) of C.P.C. The Rule deals with
withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of
claim. The SubRules (3) and (4) of Rule 1 of
OrderXXIIIofC.P.C.readasfollows:
"(3)WheretheCourtissatisfied,
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
45
rt
C
ou
formaldefect,or
ig
h
itmay,onsuchtermsasitthinksfit,grant
theplaintiffpermissiontowithdrawfromsuch
suitorsuchpartoftheclaimwithlibertyto
institute a fresh suit in respect of the
claim.
subjectmatterofsuchsuitorsuchpartofthe
ba
y
(4)Wheretheplaintiff
(a) abandons any suit or part of claim under
om
subrule(1),or
(b)withdrawsfromasuitorpartofaclaim
without the permission referred to in sub
rule(3),
heshallbeliableforsuchcostsastheCourt
may award and shall be precluded from
institutinganyfresh suitinrespect ofsuch
subjectmatterorsuchpartoftheclaim."
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
46
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
47
rt
C
ou
ig
h
basedoneventswhichtookplacesubsequenttothe
filingoftheearlierproceedingwhichwassought
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
48
rt
C
ou
fortheearlierPetition.OrderXXIIISubRule(4)
of Rule1ofC.P.C.precludestheplaintifffrom
instituting any fresh suit in respect of the
ig
h
instancesprovidedtheyarerelevantinsubsequent
petition. In the present matter although now
ba
y
om
claimedbythePetitionerinearlierPetition.As
the present Petition isnow being dealt with and
decided on the basis of subsequent events, the
reference to the evidence of the Respondent with
regard to earlier instances can be referred only
where and if relevant to decide present subject
matter or for appreciation of evidence if the
witnessisreliable.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
rt
49
20.
C
ou
CRUELTY:
Determination,thereisevidenceofthePetitioner
claiming that notice of the earlier divorce
Petition No.A.46 of 2004 was served on the
ig
h
9thFebruary2004.AsperthePetitioner,whenshe
received notice, she threatened the Petitioner
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
50
rt
andinfrontofpatientsabusedhimandthreatened
C
ou
him.Regardingthisincident,hesentapplication
to Kranti Chowk Police Station on 27th February
2004.ThePetitionerfurtherdeposedthaton28th
February2004,inthemorning,Respondentcamein
front of the clinic asking him to withdraw the
ig
h
ba
y
28thFebruary2004whichwasrecordedasN.C.No.
163of2004.DocumentinthisregardisatExhibit
om
95.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
51
rt
C
ou
arrestedandthereafterwerereleasedonbail.It
is deposed that atthe timeof bailproceedings,
Respondent,althoughshedidnothaveanyinjury,
appearedwithbothhandsbandaged,togetsympathy
oftheCourt.Theevidencefurthershowsastohow
ig
h
ba
y
deterioratedtosuchanextentthatnowitisnot
possibletolivewithRespondent.
om
21.
TheRespondentextensivelycrossexamined
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
52
RESPONDEDNTNOTRELIABLE:
22.
C
ou
rt
Respondent.
ig
h
havediscussedabove.Weneednotrepeatthesame.
She has also been crossexamined and her cross
examinationrevealscertainfactswhichshowthat
sheisnotreliablewitness.Wewillbrieflyrefer
ba
y
tothoseinstances:
(a).
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
53
rt
C
ou
thatherownsister,withwhomshehadgot
good relations, herself has a clinic at
Kartiki Hotel (Para 2 of the cross
ig
h
(b)
practicingwithhersister.
ba
y
om
herclinic.However,hercrossexamination,
Para 9 shows that she had submitted
quotations to the Bank to get the loan
released. Her evidence ( Cross Para 29)
showsthatinitiallysheacceptedthatshe
received cheque from Bank of Rupees Ten
Thousand in the name of M/s. Vijay and
sons,butinfurthercrossexaminationshe
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
54
rt
C
ou
Respondentraisedmuchhueandcry
ig
h
(c).
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
55
rt
29thNovember2002hewasgivenoriginalof
C
ou
criminalcase)forinquiryandthathehad
gone to the house of the Petitioner and
alsogivenunderstandingtotheparentsof
the Respondent. Against this, the cross
ig
h
themarriageshehadgonetotheclinicof
thePetitionertoextendDiwaligreetings.
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
56
rt
knowntoRespondentsincebefore.Although
C
ou
(d).
ig
h
Petitioner.
Respondentclaimed(inPara18of
ba
y
om
29thNovember2002.AssuchMakarSankrant
(e).
misconducttothePetitionerandhisfamily
claimingthatshewasnotallowedtogoto
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
57
rt
C
ou
(f).
Respondent
claimed
physical
ig
h
examinationinchief).Sheclaimedthatthe
incidenttookplaceat12.30p.m.Stillshe
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
58
rt
C
ou
(g).
ig
h
beatenmorethan910times.
ba
y
om
admittedthatshedidnothavefractureto
the thumbs of both the hands. In evidence
she claimed that she had tendon injury to
her thumbs. Even this is not supported by
medical evidence. Para 27 of her cross
examinationshowsthatsheadmittedthatat
the time of anticipatory bail of the
relatives of the Petitioner, she was
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
59
rt
C
ou
course,sheimmediatelyretractedfromthis
admissionalso.
(h).
ig
h
ba
y
underSection498AofI.P.C.Thenshehas
added that it was under pressure of
AdvocateGhanekarrepresentingtheaccused.
om
shehadadmittedhersignatureinthecase
(i).
examination,Respondentacceptedthatthere
was no dispute at the time of betrothal
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
60
rt
ceremonyaboutwhatistobegiven.Wehave
C
ou
beforetheMarriageRegistrarvideExhibit
ig
h
137andalettertopolicevideExhibit84.
Inspite of this, the Respondent has tried
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
61
rt
(j).
C
ou
wouldnothavedonethat.
ig
h
morethan89occasions,nosinglepieceof
evidence was brought on record either in
ba
y
Respondentclaimsthatshewastakenbythe
Petitioner.
om
(k).
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
62
rt
(l).
C
ou
criminalcase.
herexaminationinchief)thatmarriagewas
preponed and so her father gave five Tola
ig
h
goldandhadagreed togivetenTolagold
withinayear.Inspiteofthis,shehasled
ba
y
om
(m).
shewasassaultedandleftattheplaceof
her parents, she was pregnant by three
months and because of the assault she was
takentoDr.Mrs.Mahindrakarandalthough
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
63
rt
doctorinformedthePetitioner,hedidnot
C
ou
comeandshelostthechild.Althoughsuch
seriousallegationshavebeenmade,neither
Dr. Mrs. Mahindrakar was examined nor any
other medical evidence is brought to show
thatindeedtheRespondentwaspregnantand
ig
h
thatshesufferedmiscarriage.
23.
IMPUGNEDJUDGMENTNOTMAINTAINABLE:
Wehavegonethroughtheevidenceofthe
ba
y
PetitioneraswellasRespondent.TheFamilyCourt
discussed the evidence and while discussing the
evidence of the Petitioner, referred to the
om
admissionsgivenbythePetitionertoobservethat
theadmissionsshatteredhisevidence,But,while
referring to the Respondent, Family Court
definitelyconcluded(inPara66ofJudgment)that
shehasgivenfalsetestimonytosomeextent.The
observationsoftheFamilyCourtshow(inPara40
of the Judgment) that this is not a case of
physical cruelty. As regards mental cruelty, in
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
64
rt
C
ou
thatasfatherofRespondentwasClassIVemployee
andPetitionerclaimedthatitwaslovemarriage,
mother and brother of the Petitioner must have
tortured Respondent. We find that there was
regular betrothal ceremony in the present matter
ig
h
anditappearsthatbetweenthebetrothalceremony
and marriage something happened due to which
ba
y
om
havebeendrawnbytheFamilyCourtonthebasis
ofassumptionsandpresumptions.TheFamilyCourt
(in Para 45 of the Judgment) found that the
Respondent had failed to examine any doctor to
prove assault. In Para 46 of the Judgment the
FamilyCourtjustifiedthefilingofcriminalcase
under Section 498A of I.P.C. on the reasoning
thatitwasthePetitionerwhofirstfileddivorce
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
65
rt
C
ou
TheFamilyCourtwantedthePetitionerto
ig
h
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
66
rt
C
ou
24.
ig
h
THECRIMINALANDOTHERCASESFILED:
ItisnotindisputethattheRespondent
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
67
rt
C
ou
Petitionerhadbeatenher,andherbrothersinlaw
Sujay and Vijay were poisoning the ears of her
husband and asking him to beat her. She claimed
thaton4thDecember2003shewasbeatenandleft
at the place of her parents. She claimed that
ig
h
whenevershewantedtogotoherparents,shewas
not being allowed to go and her motherinlaw,
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
68
C
ou
25.
rt
live.
CriminalCaseNo.414of2004wasfiledagainstthe
Petitionerandhisfamilymembers.Wehavealready
discussedevidencethatthePetitionerandoneof
ig
h
hisbrotherwerearrestedandlateronreleasedon
bail, while other family members succeeded in
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
69
rt
C
ou
memberstotheHighCourt,theJudgmentofremand
was set aside and learned Single Judge of this
Court upheld the Judgment of the J.M.F.C. on
merits. Respondent appears to have gone against
ig
h
theJudgmentoftheHighCourtinSpecialLeaveto
Appeal (Criminal) No.807 of 2009 to the Hon'ble
ba
y
ordersoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtaresubsequent
to the passing of the present impugned Judgment
dated27thMarch2008.CopiesofJudgmentsareon
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
70
C
ou
26.
rt
asawitness.
2006inFamilyCourt,Respondentfiledapplication
Exhibit 12 under Section 26 of the Domestic
Violence Act on 1st December 2006 and it was
ig
h
ba
y
om
J.M.F.C.on31stDecember2012.
27.
ApartfromtheabovecriminalcaseNo.414
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
71
rt
C
ou
defendingthePetitionerinthecriminalcaseand
also Head Constable Adhane who gave evidence in
thecriminalcasetoproveapplicationExhibit84
dated29thNovember2002.Shearrayedallofthem
ig
h
thecomplainttobetimebarredandalsoreferred
to Section 195 oftheCode ofCriminal Procedure
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
72
rt
Respondenthasbeenmaintained.Itisquiteclear
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
Respondentwhichwasfiledintheearliercriminal
case. The Family Court concluded that these
documents were forged (Para 60 to 62 of the
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
73
C
ou
28.
rt
maintained.
Inlinewiththeotheronslaughtofthe
RespondentagainstthePetitioner,istheRegular
CivilSuitNo.713of2009filedbytheRespondent
againstPetitionerclaimingthatheintendstogo
ig
h
foranothermarriageandheshouldberestrained.
The suit has been dismissed by 18th Joint Civil
ba
y
November2012.
29.
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
74
rt
allowedtostaythereaspayingguestortenantor
Clearly,
C
ou
tocomeasfriend.
Respondent
was
making
ig
h
filed,sheclaimedthatshewasnotsuspectingthe
character of the husband. Such psyche of
ba
y
om
otherspouseamountingtocruelty.
30.
Hon'bleSupremeCourtinvariousmatters,referred
above,wherewildallegationsaremadeincriminal
cases one after the other, we find that in the
present case also the Respondent indulged in
variousconductsonceshereceivedsummonsinthe
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
75
rt
C
ou
andshouldremaininjail.Shemadeallegationsof
ig
h
andeventhosemadetotheWomenandChildWelfare
Officers, as well as allegations made to the
ba
y
J.M.F.C.inDomesticViolencecase,theactswere
inthenatureofinflictingmentalcrueltytothe
Petitionerandhisfamilymembers.ThePetitioner
om
andoneofhisbrotherhadtoundergotheagonyof
getting arrested and later on being released on
bail. Brother of Petitioner admittedly living
separate has been called a "parasite" by
Respondent in this Petition and was dragged in
criminal case. They had to face the criminal
prosecution,whichappearstohavebeenmotivated.
TheFamilyCourtbrushedasidetheimpactofsuch
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
76
rt
C
ou
Petitionerdidnotloseherjoborthebrotherof
Petitioner could stillcontest municipal election
orthePetitionerputuphospitalinalreadyowned
family house. When the family is facing such
criminalprosecution,andtheyhadtofacearrest
ig
h
clearlyestablished.
ba
y
31.
findPetitionerreliablewhenhedeposedthatdue
to conduct of Respondent deserting him, he filed
om
32.
Apartingreferencecanbemadetorecent
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
77
rt
C
ou
ig
h
entitletheotherspousetoclaimadivorce."
CRUELTYPROVED:
ba
y
33.
learnedSeniorCounselforPetitioner.TheRulings
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
78
rt
23oftheHinduMarriageActandthePetitioneris
PERMANENTALIMONY:
34.
C
ou
entitledtodecreeofdivorce.
LearnedcounselforthePetitionerfairly
ig
h
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
79
rt
C
ou
headmasterinprivateeducationinstitution.The
above property came in the family in view of
effortsofhisfather.Oneofthebrotherofthe
Petitionerappearstobeworkerofsomepolitical
partyandotherbrotherVijaywasinservice.The
ig
h
Petitionerappearstohavesetuphishospitalin
partofthepropertyandisalsohavingclinicat
ba
y
om
inthecrossexaminationofthePetitioneratPara
No.19, that when they were together, she was
earning Rs. 10,000/ to Rs.12,000/ per month,
which suggestion has been accepted by the
Petitioner. The position that emerges is that in
theancestralhouse,therearefourcosharersand
thePetitionerisadoctor,whileRespondentalso
isadoctor.Keepinginviewthiscapacityofboth
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
80
rt
C
ou
reasonabletodirectthePetitionertodepositan
amount of Rs.25,00,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five
Lakhs) in the Family Court as permanent alimony
35.
ig
h
payabletotheRespondent.
Forthereasonsaforestated,wepassthe
followingorder:
ba
y
ORDER
(I) The Family Court Appeal is allowed.
ImpugnedJudgmentandOrderarequashedand
om
(II)Themarriagedated29thNovember2002
between the AppellantPetitioner and
Respondentisherebydissolvedbydecreeof
divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the
HinduMarriageAct,1955.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
fca13.08
rt
81
C
ou
permanentalimonyofRs.25,00,000/(Rupees
TwentyFiveLakhs)underSection25ofthe
HinduMarriageAct,1955totheRespondent.
TheamountshallbedepositedintheFamily
ig
h
CourtwithinaperiodofTHREEMONTHSfrom
thedateofthisJudgmentandorder.
ba
y
(IV)Noorderastocosts.
(V)Decreebedrawnaccordingly.
[A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.][R.M.BORDE,J.]
om
asb/JAN16