Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 758 (BOM)

Umesh Manohar Waidande v. Trupti Umesh Waidande

2012-04-10

ANOOP V.MOHTA, P.B.MAJMUDAR

body2012
Judgment : P.B. Majmudar, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant, who is husband of the respondent-wife, has challenged the judgment and order of the Family Court, by which the Family Court, Thane, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-husband being Marriage Petition No.209 of 2006. The appellant-husband filed the aforesaid Marriage Petition for getting decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It is the case of the appellant that his wife used to quarrel with him frequently in the presence of other family members and she was not parting with the salary which she is earning out of the employment, as he was having financial difficulties. The aforesaid behaviour of the wife i.e. insulting the husband and not parting salary in his favour, is treated to be a ground for cruelty, for which a Marriage Petition was filed. The other ground for divorce which was pressed into service was the ground of desertion. 2. The learned Judge of the Family Court after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no justification in dissolving the marriage. The Family Court negatived both the points regarding cruelty as well as desertion and dismissed the Marriage Petition filed by the appellant-husband. The respondent-wife has filed a counter claim regarding the restitution of conjugal rights. The said counter claim was allowed and decreed in favour of the respondent-wife and the Family Court directed the appellant to join the respondent and render conjugal rights to her and also directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.5,000/-p.m., for the minor son till he resumes cohabitation. 3. The marriage between the appellant and respondent took place in the year 2001 and out of the said weklock, there is also a minor son who is 9 years of age. In so far as the ground about cruelty is concerned, it is required to be noted that except stating in the evidence that the respondent-wife used to insult the husband, he has not given any cogent particulars about the nature of cruelty. In para No.4 of the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, the appellant-husband has stated that at the time of marriage, it was decided between both the parties that marriage expenses will be shared equally. He further stated that the sister of the respondent-wife is having quarrelsome nature and she does not respect elders. 4. In para No.4 of the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, the appellant-husband has stated that at the time of marriage, it was decided between both the parties that marriage expenses will be shared equally. He further stated that the sister of the respondent-wife is having quarrelsome nature and she does not respect elders. 4. In para No.5, the appellant has deposed that the respondent is a women of independent and selfish nature and was doing the things which she like and decide. She used to take guidance of her mother who is residing nearby. He has further stated that prior to the marriage, the respondent told her that she would share her salary with him, but after the marriage, she did not share her salary with him. In para No.6 of the affidavit, the appellant has averred that the respondent used to pick up quarrels petty reasons and used to abuse him in filthy language and she used to insult him in presence of relatives. In the evidence, the husband has also stated that on all matters, she used to consult with her mother. He stated that since last three years she is residing with her parents and deprived him of his matrimonial rights. 5. In the cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that the dispute between him and respondent-wife arose on the issue of money 1012 after her delivery. He admitted that the demand of money was made by him on two occasions during the delivery of the respondent. The respondent was having bank account in her single name and there was no joint account. He further admitted that when for the first time after her delivery, I demanded money from her, the respondent told him that she will discuss this issue on the next day as she is feeding the child and accordingly, again on the next day, he went to her parents house for discussing the money issue. The respondent expressed her inability to pay the money to the appellant. 6. The learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the evidence in proper perspective and found that the appellant has failed to make out any case about the cruelty. As a matter of fact, the respondent in her evidence stated that so far as ground of desertion is concerned, she has filed a counter claim regarding restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the evidence in proper perspective and found that the appellant has failed to make out any case about the cruelty. As a matter of fact, the respondent in her evidence stated that so far as ground of desertion is concerned, she has filed a counter claim regarding restitution of conjugal rights. In her evidence, she has stated that the appellant is not her back to the matrimonial house as he did not want to cohabit with her. Considering the evidence on record, the Family Court allowed the counter claim regarding restitution of conjugal rights. 7. We have gone through the judgment and order of the Family Court and have gone through the oral evidence which is made available with the appeal proceedings. It is required to be noted that simply because wife is earning and did not part with her salary in favour of the husband, can never be treated as a ground for cruelty on the part of the wife to the husband. It is very distressing that on such a trifle ground, the appellant has deserted her wife and is not keeping her with him, though there is a child out of the said wedlock. It has come in the evidence that immediately after the delivery of the child, the appellant demanded money from the wife and as discussed above, when the wife was feeding the child, he was demanding money from her and infact, on the subsequent days, he was demanding money from her. If any cruelty is to be attributed, in our view, it can be attributed to the appellant-husband and not to the wife. In the evidence, the appellant has not given any particulars about the insulting behaviour of the wife, except stating that she used to insult in presence of her relatives. After the marriage, the wife is not executing slavery bond that she will not speak anything. The wife is entitled to have a voice in the family and she is expected to have her voice by expressing her views. On absolutely flimsy grounds as stated above, the appellant has tried to get marriage dissolved by getting decree for divorce when out of the said wedlock, there is a child who is minor. The wife is entitled to have a voice in the family and she is expected to have her voice by expressing her views. On absolutely flimsy grounds as stated above, the appellant has tried to get marriage dissolved by getting decree for divorce when out of the said wedlock, there is a child who is minor. In our view, the Family Court rightly dismissed the marriage petition, as on such a flimsy and trifle ground, the solemnized marriage should not be allowed to be dissolved by such act of the appellant-husband. The real sufferer is the child and the respondent wife is also subjected to suffering as the appellant is not permitting her to come back to the matrimonial home. The Family Court therefore, rightly allowed the counter claim filed by the respondent wife, allowing the restitution of conjugal rights. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant is now residing in Norway and is earning 37000 Norway currency. In spite of the said fact, he is not looking after his wife and child. It will be open to the respondent wife to try to get the social security number of the appellant-husband, on the basis of which she can point out to the Indian High Commission as well as the Norway Government that the appellant-husband is not maintaining the child and wife, as it is informed to the Court that he is not sending any amount of maintenance. On the basis of social security number, the concerned Indian High Commission at Norway can very well find out the name of the employer of the said appellant, which name can be given to the respondent wife and on the basis of which, the respondent-wife can take out appropriate proceedings against the appellant and can send a copy of this order to the concerned employer, so that the employer can deduct the amount of maintenance and send the same to the wife in India at her address, as it is a matter of child protection and the amount in question is required to be spend for the protection of child. The respondent-wife is free to take out such proceedings in accordance with law and as deemed fit. 9. In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any substance in the above Family Court Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. The respondent-wife is free to take out such proceedings in accordance with law and as deemed fit. 9. In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any substance in the above Family Court Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. In view of the dismissal of the Family Court Appeal No.151 of 2011, the Civil Application No.317 of 2011 does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed.