fca49.15.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.49/2015
WITH
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.16/2016
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.49/2015
APPELLANT: Bhushan Jageshwar Sakhare,
aged about 33 years, Occupation : Service,
resident of 184, Balaji Nagar (Extn),
Manewada Road, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Smt. Vandana w/o Bhushan Sakhare,
aged about 29 years, occupation : service, resident
of Kalka Para, Ward no.8, Dongargarh,
District Rajnandgaon, Chattisgarh.
Also
Mecon Limited, P.O. Doranda, Ranchi - 834002,
Jharkhand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.A. Abhayankar, Advocate for appellant
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.16/2016
APPELLANT: Bhushan Jageshwar Sakhare,
aged about 33 years, Occupation : Service,
resident of 184, Balaji Nagar (Extn),
Manewada Road, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 :::
fca49.15.odt
2
RESPONDENT : Smt. Vandana w/o Bhushan Sakhare,
aged about 29 years, occupation : service, resident
of Kalka Para, Ward no.8, Dongargarh,
District Rajnandgaon, Chattisgarh.
Also
Mecon Limited, P.O. Doranda, Ranchi - 834002,
Jharkhand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.A. Abhayankar, Advocate for appellant
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 06.03.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.) Since the parties to these family court appeals are the same and the facts involved in the same are also the same, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.
2. Family Court Appeal No.16/2016 is filed by the appellant- husband against the judgment passed by the Family Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellant-husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Family Court Appeal No.49/2015 is filed by the husband against the judgment passed by the Family Court in a petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 :::
fca49.15.odt 3
3. Few facts giving rise to the family court appeals are stated thus :-
The appellant-husband and the respondent - wife were married at Dongargarh on 26.5.2010. The appellant-husband was serving at Bangalore at the time of the marriage as a Software Engineer in a reputed company. The respondent-wife was serving at Ranchi at the time of her marriage as a Design Engineer. It is the case of the appellant - husband that before the marriage, it was decided between the parties that after the marriage, the wife would get herself transferred to Bangalore and reside with him in the matrimonial home. It is pleaded by the husband in the petition filed by him in the year 2012 for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty that the wife did not quit her job in Ranchi and did not secure a job at Bangalore, with a view to reside with the husband. It is pleaded in the petition filed by the husband in the year 2012 that when he was to go from Bangalore to Nagpur on 4.11.2010 for Diwali festival and when he informed the said fact to the wife, the wife was reluctant to join his company at Nagpur on the ground that she did not have a reserved ticket for travelling to Nagpur. It is pleaded by the husband in the petition that he arranged an e-ticket for the wife and she then came to Nagpur. It is pleaded that the husband and the wife went to the house of the parents of the wife at Dongargarh and again stayed ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 4 together at Nagpur for about a week. It is pleaded that the wife did not have any love and affection for the husband and his family members. It is pleaded that the wife did not perform her matrimonial duties, woke-up late in the morning and deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the orders of the husband and his parents. It is pleaded that though the husband gave all the comforts to the wife, she was not happy. It is pleaded that when the wife had monthly periods on 10.11.2010 and when the husband was not able to sleep in the bedroom because of the extreme hot weather and the noise due to the marriage programme in the neighbourhood, the wife became violent, lost her mental balance and broke her Mangalsutra. It is pleaded that the wife threw the Mangalsutra on the husband, packed her bags, called her cousin brother, named, Pintu to drop her to the railway station so that she could go back to Dongargarh. It is pleaded that after the husband and his parents persuaded the wife, she locked herself in the bedroom, did not come out of the same and even the food was served to her in the bedroom till her mother and her other relatives came from Dongargarh to pick her up. It is pleaded that the wife was arrogant and hot tempered and was very proud that she was educated and had a good job. It is pleaded that on 7.11.2011 the sister of the wife had sent a false SMS on the mobile phone of the husband that the wife had committed suicide and the husband's family ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 5 had killed her. It is pleaded that the husband had suffered a mental shock because of the conduct on the part of the sister of the wife of sending the frightening SMS. It is pleaded by the husband that the parties went to Kerala in the month of December, 2010 and after staying with the husband for a few days at Bangalore the wife went back on 8.1.2011, never to return to the matrimonial home or the house of the parents of the husband at Nagpur. It is pleaded that the parties had filed a petition for consent divorce in the Family Court in the District at Chhattisgarh on 17.8.2011 but the wife surreptitiously withdrew the said petition without informing the husband. It is pleaded that on 25.12.2011, the wife and her relatives tried to enter the house of the parents of the husband at Nagpur on 25.12.2011 and on witnessing the behaviour of the wife and her relatives, the husband was scared that they would cause harm to his and his parents' life and limb. It is pleaded that the parties resided separately for about a year and the wife did not have any intention to reside with the husband.
4. The wife did not file a written statement in the proceedings filed by the husband in the year 2012 for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The matter proceeded ex parte and the Family Court on an appreciation of the evidence on record by the judgment, dated 18.1.2014 dismissed the petition filed by the husband for a decree of ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 6 divorce. The Family Court held that the husband had failed to prove that the wife had treated him with cruelty. The Family Court framed the issue whether the wife had deserted the husband and held that a decree of divorce could not be granted on the ground of desertion as the parties were not living separately from each other for a period of two years before the date of filing of the petition. The Family Court answered the issue of desertion against the husband on the technical ground that the parties were not separated for a period of two years before filing of the petition by the husband. The husband has challenged the judgment of the Family Court dated 18.1.2014 in Family Court Appeal No.16/2016.
5. Since the Family Court had held in the judgment dated 18.1.2014 that the parties had not separated for a period of two years before the date of filing of the petition, the husband filed a petition for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion on 24.3.2014 after ensuring that the separation period was more than two years at the time of filing of the petition, bearing Petition No.A.299 of 2014. The second proceedings filed by the husband also proceeded ex parte against the wife. The wife did not defend the matter despite service. The Family Court, by the judgment, dated 10.4.2015 dismissed the petition filed by the husband on the ground of desertion by applying the principles of res judicata, though a specific reference is not made to the same, in the judgment. The Family ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 7 Court observed that by the previous petition filed by the husband in the year 2012, a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion was sought and since the Family Court had held that the wife had not deserted the husband, the husband could not have filed the second petition for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. The Family Court observed that since the second petition for desertion was not based on new facts, it was necessary to dismiss the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. Consequently, by the judgment dated 10.4.2015, the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion was also dismissed. The judgment of the Family Court dated 10.4.2015 is challenged by the appellant in Family Court Appeal No.49/2015.
6. Shri Abhyankar, the learned Counsel for the appellant - husband submitted that the Family Court could have granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty in the matter filed by the husband in the year 2012. It is submitted that though the wife had agreed to reside with the husband at Bangalore as per the understanding between the parties before the solemnization of the marriage, the wife did not seek a job in Bangalore and never resided with the husband in the matrimonial home. It is submitted that in the first Diwali also the wife was not ready to come to Nagpur to the house of her in-laws on the ground that she did not have ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 8 a reserved ticket and only when an e-ticket was sent to her, she came to Nagpur for Diwali. It is stated that during her stay at Nagpur in Diwali, the wife did not perform her matrimonial duties and behaved very arrogantly with the appellant's parents. It is submitted that the wife used to wake up very late in the morning and did not perform her household duties. It is submitted that when during the stay of the parties at Nagpur the wife had her monthly periods and the husband had to sleep in the hall of the house at Nagpur in view of the noise due to the marriage in the neighbourhood and as she was feeling very hot, the wife got very furious, created a scene, broke her Mangalsutra and threw it on the husband. It is submitted that the wife had packed her bags to leave for Dongargarh and when the parents of the husband asked her not to do so, she did not come out of the bedroom for the next few days till her mother and the other relatives came to pick her up and even the food was served to her inside the bedroom. It is submitted that the said acts on the part of the wife caused great mental cruelty to the husband. It is submitted that the sister of the wife had sent a shocking SMS in regard to the suicide by the wife and the said act on the part of the sister of the wife caused great mental agony to the husband. It is submitted that the wife was not ready to reside in the matrimonial home and had hardly resided with the husband for less than a month from the date of the marriage on 26.5.2010 till the ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 9 parties separated on 8.1.2011. It is submitted that the act on the part of the wife in not joining the company of the husband at Bangalore by securing a job at Bangalore, as decided, has caused mental cruelty to the husband.
7. It is submitted that in the first petition filed by the husband, the husband had not sought a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. It is stated that the Family Court picked up some stray statements from paragraph 14 of the said petition to frame an issue of desertion though two years had not lapsed from the separation of the parties till the filing of the petition, and held that the husband was not entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. It is submitted that in the first petition filed by the husband, the issue of desertion though wrongfully framed, was decided against the husband solely on the technical ground that the husband had not filed the petition for divorce on the ground of desertion, after waiting for a period of two years from the date of the separation of the parties. It is submitted that even assuming that in the first petition the husband had sought a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, still the finding of the Family Court in the first judgment dated 18.1.2014 that the husband was not entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion would not operate as res judicata as the said issue was decided against the husband only on a ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 10 technical ground that the petition was not filed after waiting for a period of two years from the date of separation. It is submitted that if the first petition filed by the husband was rejected by the Family Court by framing the issue of desertion and deciding the same against the husband solely on the technical ground, the second petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion could not have been said to be barred by the principles of res judicata. It is submitted that it is apparent from the conduct of the wife that she was not ready to reside with the husband in the matrimonial home and that the wife did not have any reasonable excuse for staying away from the husband after 8.1.2011. It is submitted that in the absence of any written statement filed by the wife, there is nothing on record to show that the wife had a reasonable excuse to stay away from the husband after 8.1.2011.
8. It appears that though the notice was served on the wife in Family Court Appeal No.16/2016 in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the wife did not appear and was not represented. The delay was condoned and the family court appeal was admitted. After the admission of the appeal, a notice was sought to be served on the respondent-wife, however, the notice could not be served as the respondent - wife was not present in the office at the time of service of the notice and the colleagues of the respondent - wife in her office refused ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 11 to accept the notice. The notice was then sought to be served on the respondent - wife by speed post and registered post. Since it appeared that the wife was trying to evade the service, the husband was permitted to serve the wife by paper publication. The husband has served the wife by paper publication after securing due permission of this Court. In Family Court Appeal No.49/2015, the respondent - wife refused to accept the notice and hence, it was observed that the notice was deemed to have been served on the respondent - wife. None appears for the respondent- wife in both the appeals, despite service of notice.
9. On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant - husband and on a perusal of the record and proceedings, it appears that the following points arise for determination in these family court appeals :-
(i) Whether the appellant-husband proves
that the wife had treated him with cruelty ?
(ii) Whether the appellant-husband proves
that the wife had deserted him without any just and
reasonable excuse ?
(iii) Whether the appellant-husband is
entitled to a decree of divorce ?
(iv) What order ?
10. To answer the aforesaid points, it would be necessary to consider the pleadings of the appellant - husband and the evidence ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 12 tendered by him. The wife has not filed the written statement in both the proceedings and has not defended the petitions filed by the husband. In the first petition filed by the husband in the year 2012, the husband has clearly pleaded that it was agreed between the parties before the solemnization of the marriage that the wife would get herself transferred to Bangalore and would secure a job at Bangalore after the solemnization of the marriage as the husband was posted at Bangalore at the relevant time. The husband has pleaded in the first petition that the wife was not behaving properly with the husband or his family members and did not intend to cohabit with the husband. It was pleaded that the wife was very proud as she was highly educated and had a good job at Ranchi. It is pleaded that during the first Diwali the wife had declined to come to Nagpur in the house of her in-laws only because she did not have a reservation. It is pleaded that the wife came to Nagpur to reside with the husband for about seven days during the first Diwali and during her stay at Nagpur she behaved very rudely with the husband and his family members. It is pleaded that the wife used to wake up late in the morning, did not do her household duties and always disobeyed the orders of her in-laws without any rhyme or reason. It is pleaded that when the wife had her monthly periods and the husband had slept in the hall of the house of his parents at Nagpur, in view of the hot weather and there was a lot of ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 13 noise near the bedroom of the parties due to the marriage in the neighbourhood, the wife created a scene. The husband has pleaded that the wife got extremely furious, shouted on the husband, broke her Mangalsutra, threw it on the husband and packed her bags so as to go to Dongargarh. It is stated that though the wife was asked to stay at Nagpur by the parents of the husband, the wife locked herself in the bedroom and even food was served to her in the bedroom. It is stated that such acts on the part of the wife in the early days of the marriage caused great mental agony to the husband. It is pleaded that the wife's sister had sent a false SMS that the wife had committed suicide and the husband and his family members were responsible for her death. It is pleaded that even after the separation, the wife and her family members had come to the house of the husband at Nagpur to create a scene in the year 2011 and the husband and his family members got extremely scared that the relatives of the wife would cause danger to the life and limb of the husband and his family members. It is pleaded by the husband that the wife did not mend her ways and behaved rudely with the husband when she resided at Bangalore in the month of December, 2010. It is pleaded in the first petition that the parties had separated for about a year and the wife did not intend to cohabit with the husband. In the absence of any written statement by the wife, it would have to be held that the facts pleaded by ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 14 the husband are deemed to have been admitted. The husband has filed the evidence on affidavit. The husband was however not cross-examined on behalf of the wife as the matter proceeded ex parte against the wife. The husband examined his mother in support of his case that the wife had treated him with cruelty. Needless to say that the mother of the husband was also not cross-examined on behalf of the wife. It would be necessary to hold in the circumstances of the case that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. The case of the husband that there was an agreement between the parties before the marriage that the wife would quit her job at Ranchi, which is at a great distance from Bangalore and secure a job at Bangalore so that she could cohabit with the husband has gone unchallenged. The husband has led evidence on this aspect and there is no cross-examination. The pleadings of the husband in this regard have gone unchallenged in the absence of the written statement. Though the husband has categorically pleaded that the wife had agreed to leave her job at Ranchi and secure a job at Bangalore and reside with the husband, the wife has not disputed the same. It is quite possible in the facts of the case that the parties had decided even before the marriage that the wife would transfer her job to Bangalore with a view to reside with him at Bangalore. If one of the parties is serving at Ranchi and the other party is serving at Bangalore, it is possible to believe that the parties ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 15 would agree before the marriage that one of the parties would quit the job and start residing with the other party. In the instant case when the wife is also an Engineer and is in a position to secure a job in Bangalore after giving up her job at Ranchi, the wife ought to have made at least some attempts to secure a job at Bangalore. The wife however did not quit her job at Ranchi or get her job transferred to Bangalore. It is not possible for the parties to cohabit if one of the parties is serving at a place which is at a great distance from the place where the other spouse is residing. In the instant case, when the parties were serving at distant places, it is quite natural that one of the parties would transfer the job and start residing with the other party. If the wife would not quit her job, would not get her job transferred to Bangalore then it was not possible for the parties to cohabit with each other. During the period of about two years from the date of solemnization of the marriage till the date of filing of the first petition by the husband, the parties had hardly resided together for a month or two in all and that too in intervals. This clearly shows that there was no cohabitation between the parties for long, after the marriage was solemnized. During the period of stay of the wife at Bangalore and at Nagpur, it appears that the wife did not behave properly with the husband and his family members. The Family Court was not justified in holding that it was difficult to accept the husband's case in ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 16 respect of breaking of the Mangalsutra by the wife and creating a scene after the husband slept in the hall of the house as no reason is stated by the husband for the wife to act in such a manner. The Family Court has erroneously held that no prudent person would act in such a manner unless there is a quarrel or dispute between the parties. The Family Court wrongly held that merely because the wife was highly educated it was difficult to accept the case of the husband that the wife created a scene after he slept in the hall of the house at Nagpur. The Family Court also committed a mistake in holding that an isolated incident would not tantamount to cruelty. The reasons recorded by the Family Court for disbelieving the case of the husband do not appear to be correct. The husband had clearly stated that because the husband slept in the hall of the house, the wife got violent and she broke her Mangalsutra, threw it on his person and packed her bags. The husband had clearly pleaded and also stated in his evidence that the wife had remained in the bedroom and was even served food in the bedroom during the next few days. The evidence of the husband is supported by the evidence of his mother. The Family Court however did not accept the unchallenged evidence of the husband and his mother by observing that a prudent person would not act in such a manner. Surely the husband's case was that the wife was not prudent and that did not behave like a normal wife. The husband had ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 17 categorically pleaded and stated in his evidence that the wife did not perform her matrimonial duties and also behaved very rudely with his parents. It cannot be said that an incident like the incident of breaking Mangalsutra, getting violent and packing the bags would not be an incident that could result in holding that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. The Family Court erroneously held that a highly educated working woman would not act in such a manner. There was no reason for the Family Court to hold so when the wife had not disputed the facts pleaded by the husband and the evidence of the husband and his mother had gone unchallenged in the absence of any cross-examination. The incident, dated 10.11.2010 would surely tantamount to cruelty, if it is considered along with the behaviour of the wife on the said day and the next few days. The wife became violent on 10.11.2010, lost her mental balance, broke her Mangalsutra and threw it on the husband, packed her bags and had called her cousin brother immediately so that she could be dropped to the railway station to go to her parents' house. A girl who is married just a couple of months before the said incident would not behave in such a manner with the husband with whom she is meeting after a 'long', time, specially when she has attended the house of her in- laws for the first Diwali. The said incident, coupled with the arrogant and rude behaviour of the wife and the refusal on the part of the wife to abide ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 18 by the agreement between the parties before the solemnization of the marriage that the wife would secure a job at Bangalore and start residing with him at Bangalore and failing to do so would tantamount to cruelty. The Family Court erroneously held that the allegations levelled by the husband were of a general nature. The case of the husband that the sister of the wife had sent a false and damaging SMS to him that the wife had committed suicide and that the husband and his family members had killed the wife, had caused mental agony to the husband is believable. It further appears that the wife did not desire to cohabit with the husband and the parties had filed a petition for seeking a divorce by mutual consent in the Court at Chhattisgarh. The wife had however surreptitiously withdrawn the said proceedings behind the back of the husband. The very filing of the proceedings in the Court at Chhattisgarh clearly shows that the parties had arrived at a decision that it was not possible for them to reside together in the matrimonial home and the marital ties were liable to be severed.
11. In the first petition filed by the husband, the husband had clearly mentioned in the cause title that the husband had filed the same for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court however by referring to some pleadings in paragraph 14 of the first petition erroneously framed ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 19 an issue whether the wife had deserted the husband continuously for a period of more than two years without reasonable excuse and decided the same against the husband on a technical ground that two years had not lapsed from the date of the separation of the parties till the date of filing of the petition. In our view, the Family Court need not have framed the issue of desertion and even if it was framed and decided against the husband only on a technical ground, in the second petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion after the lapse of more than two years from the date of separation, the Family Court could not have dismissed the second petition by the judgment dated 10.4.2015 solely by applying the principles of res judicata. When the issue in regard to desertion was answered against the husband only on technical ground and not on merits, the second petition filed by the husband could not have been barred by the principles of res judicata. When a husband or wife files a petition for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion before the period of two years is completed and the said petition is dismissed by the Family Court solely on the technical ground, the second petition filed by the wife or the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion after the statutory period of two years of separation expires, cannot be dismissed by applying the principles of res judicata. It would be necessary for the Court to consider ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 20 in the second petition whether the husband or the wife, as the case may be, has deserted the spouse that had filed the petition for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. In the instant case, when the first petition for desertion was rejected only on technical ground and a second petition was filed by the husband after the separation period of two years, the Family Court could not have dismissed the second petition by holding that no new facts had emerged after the first petition filed by the husband was dismissed and the second petition was filed by him. The aforesaid observation of the Family Court is clearly illegal and cannot be upheld. In the instant case, we find that the wife has left the company of the husband without any just or reasonable excuse. There is a separation for a period of more than two years at the time of filing of the petition by the husband. The wife has not filed the written statement and has not pleaded that there was a just or reasonable excuse to stay away from the husband. It would be necessary for the spouse against whom desertion is alleged to prove that he/she had not deserted the party who had filed the petition and there was reasonable excuse to stay away from him/her. In this case in the absence of the written statement, it cannot be gauged as to why the wife was not residing with the husband after 8.1.2011. The parties were admittedly residing separately continuously for a period of more than two years before the filing of the second petition by the ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 ::: fca49.15.odt 21 husband and they are residing separately for more than six years, as on date. The wife has withdrawn the petition filed by the parties for a decree of divorce by consent. The wife has not bothered to file a written statement in both the petitions filed by the husband. The wife has not bothered to attend this Court even after service of notice on her. This clearly shows that the wife is not interested in cohabiting with the husband. The factum of desertion as well as the factum of animus deserendi is proved in this case. The Family Court ought to have appreciated the said facts in the second petition filed by the husband and ought to have granted a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. We find that the husband has clearly proved that he is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In our view, the Family Court, has not appreciated the evidence of the husband in the right perspective while dismissing the petitions filed by him.
12. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the family court appeals are allowed. The marriage solemnized between the parties on 26.5.2010 is dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
In the circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:00:50 :::