Whether forcing Husband to leave his parents' house amounted to mental cruelty by his wife?

Bombay High Court: Dismissing an appeal against a family court order, a bench comprising of Hon’ble P. N. Deshmukh and V.K. Tahilramani, JJ rejected the contention of the appellant that forcing him to leave his parents' house amounted to mental cruelty by his wife. In the present case, the couple got married in 2004 and one year later the wife went to her parent’s home to give birth to their child and never returned. The husband made no attempts to get her back and in 2009 filed a case for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. He submitted a litany of allegations before the court, claiming his wife had treated him cruelly alleging misbehavior with him and his parents, demanding money from him for her father's business and stating the marriage was against her wish. He even claimed that his wife had accused him of having an affair with his sister-in-law and insisted that they should move out of his parent's house. The division bench observed that with the increase in the number of family members, it is the desirous of every woman to have a separate accommodation and it is pertinent to note that the husband himself had admitted that to avoid quarrels and disputes, such arrangements were made. 

From this fact, it can be seen that the allegations were not serious in nature. The Court stated that no proof had been submitted to back the allegations. And by looking at the evidence on record, they were of the opinion that the appellant-husband could not prove that his wife treated him with cruelty, which was of such a nature that it made it difficult for him to live with her and denied him divorce.  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2013

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2013

Vilas Raosaheb Jadhav

Versus

Aarti Vilas Jadhav

Dated: 16 January 2014. CORAM

: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

SHRI. P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ

Heard the appellant-in-person and learned Advocate for the

respondent-wife.

1.This appeal is directed against the Judgment and orderdated 21.01.2013 passed by the 4th Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No. A-1781 of 2009. In the said petition, the appellant has prayed for decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 
2.He has also prayed for access to By the said Judgment and decree, the Family the minor child. Hence, this court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.

Appeal.

A few admitted facts are that :-

3.The marriage between the parties took place on 16.03.2004 as per Hindu Vedic Rites. On 26.10.2005 a male child was born. The appellant is seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion.

4.As far as desertion is concerned, the petition is filed on 24.07.2009. The appellant has failed to plead and prove the exact date of desertion. If the appellant is seeking divorce on the ground of desertion, he has to prove that the wife had deserted him two years prior to the filing of his petition, however, he has not done so. In such case, the learned Judge of the Family Court was right in holding that the appellant has not proved the ground of desertion. It is seen that the marriage took place on 16.03.2004 and on

5. 26.10.2005, a son was born to the appellant and the respondent. At that time, the respondent had gone to her parental house to stay. The appellant has not stated what efforts he has made to bring back the respondent after delivery. So also, he has not examined any other witness to show that any efforts were actually made by him to bring back the respondent. Looking to all these facts, specially the fact that the exact date of desertion has not been proved by the appellant, the learned Judge of the Family Court had rightly answered the issue in the negative.

6. As far as the issue relating to cruelty is concerned, the first allegation levelled by the appellant against the respondent is that she started misbehaving with him and his family members, however, it is noticed that he has not given any details or specified the date, time and the exact misbehaviour of the respondent. In such case, it is found that this first allegation is

very vague in nature. The second allegation is that the respondent started.

7.demanding money from the appellant for her father's business. The evidence on record shows that the appellant himself had obtained loan from Dattaseva Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., Mumbai of Rs. 3,00,000/- by mortgaging his residential house on 20.03.2008. This clearly shows that the appellant was not in a position to give a loan to anyone else. As he himself was required to take a loan, there was no question of giving any loan to others.

8.The third allegation is that the respondent was demanding separate residential premises. It is a desire of every woman to have a separate accommodation with increase in number of family members. It is pertinent to note that the appellant himself has admitted that to avoid quarrels / disputes, such arrangements were made. From this fact, it can be seen that the allegation is not serious in nature.

9.It is the case of the appellant that the respondent told him that the marriage was performed against her wish. This caused. The evidence on record shows that the total cruelty to him. Within short span, the respondent delivered a child on years. Cohabitation between the parties was very small i.e less than two 26.10.2005. If the allegation of the appellant is to be accepted that the respondent told him that the marriage was performed against her wish, then in natural course, the respondent would have disclosed this fact immediately after the marriage and could

not have told this to the appellant after birth of the child. Thus, the evidence of the appellant on this aspect is not seen asprobable and believable.

10. Another allegation levelled by the appellant is that the respondent alleged that the appellant is having an affair with his sister-in-law. The appellant has not proved the same by examining any independent witness. The entire evidence of the appellant on this aspect is very vague, no details have been stated; hence, the same appears to be improbable considering his own pleadings. The allegations levelled by the appellant if assumed to be proved, it cannot be said that those are grave and weighty. 

11.The conduct of the allegations revolve around mental cruelty. Respondent cannot be called as serious which makes it difficult for the appellant to live with the respondent. On the other hand, the evidence of the appellant shows that he has failed to take proper care of the respondent and minor child.

12. Looking to the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the appellant has not been able to prove that the respondent

treated him with cruelty which was of such a nature that it made it difficult for the appellant to live with the respondent. The learned Judge of the Family Court has rightly considered all the aspects and dismissed the petition. No interference is called for.

13.The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. At this stage, it may be stated that as the appeal is dismissed, there is no question of access to the child, hence, the

In view of disposal if the appeal, nothing survives in the Civil said prayer is rejected. Application No. 151 of 2013 and the same is disposed of as such.

[SHRI. P.N. DESHMUKH, J ]

[SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ]