Shri Jivraj S/O Prabhakar Kale vs Smt. Smita W/O Jivraj Kale
2017 Latest Caselaw 1767 Bom

                                                                                                          FCA.288.14

                                                             1



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                            ...

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.288 OF 2014

Shri Jivraj s/o Prabhakar Kale Aged about 40 years, occu: service R/o Itwari, Mirchi Bazaar, Nagpur. ..APPELLANT

v e r s u s

Smt. Smita Jivaji Kale Aged about 34 years, occu. NIL R/o C/o Sandeep Wade, Indira Colony, Bhagwannagar Nagpur. ...RESPONDENT ...........................................................................................................................

Mr. Wilson Mathew, Advocate for the appellant Mr. B.W. Patil, Advocate for the respondents ...........................................................................................................................

                                                    CORAM:    SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK   &
                                                                   MRS . SWAPNA  JOSHI, JJ
                                                                                          . 
                                                    DATED :       13  & 17  April, 2017
                                                                    th     th




ORAL  JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

1. By this Family Court Appeal, the appellant-husband has challenged the

judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur, dated 25.03.2013 allowing the petition

filed by the respondent-wife for grant of maintenance and dismissing the

petition filed by the husband for grant of a decree of divorce on the ground of

cruelty.

2. The appellant-Husband and the respondent-Wife were married on

FCA.288.14

07.06.2007 as per the rights prevailing in their community. A daughter is born

from the said wedlock. In the petition filed by the husband for a decree of

divorce, it is pleaded that the wife behaved properly with the husband for a

period of fifteen days and thereafter started behaving abnormally. It is pleaded

that the wife is a quarrelsome lady and as she belongs to a rich family, she

could not adjust with the husband. It is pleaded that the wife always picked up

quarrel with the husband and she threatened the husband that she would

commit suicide or leave the house. It is pleaded that initially the husband and

his mother did not consider the matter to be so serious but, since the wife did

not change her ways, the husband realized that it was not possible to reside

with the wife. It is pleaded that while leaving for service, the wife never

prepared the breakfast or food for the husband. It is pleaded that the wife

used to make vulgar comments on the appellant and his mother. It is pleaded

that the wife used to ask the husband that they should reside separately and

away from his mother. It is pleaded that due to the quarrelsome nature of the

wife, the husband was unable to attend the office on several occasions and was

continuously under mental stress. It is pleaded that the wife was behaving

badly with the relatives of the husband. It is pleaded that though the husband

and his family members tried to make the wife understand that she should

change her ways, the wife did not mend her ways. It is pleaded that the wife

left the matrimonial home when she was pregnant and when the girl child was

FCA.288.14

born, the wife did not inform the husband about the birth of the child. It is

pleaded that neither the wife nor her family members permitted the husband

to meet the new-born child and when the husband went to the parental home

of the wife, he was not permitted to enter the house. It is pleaded that since

the wife belongs to a rich family, she always used to abuse the husband for not

providing luxurious and lavish life for her. It is pleaded that the wife returned

to the matrimonial home on 21.10.2007 when the husband and his mother

went to pick her up from her parental home but, only after about five days, the

wife again picked up quarrel with the mother of the husband and the husband,

and after abusing them in very vulgar and filthy language, left the house. It is

pleaded that in June-2008, the brother of the wife came along with some

goondas to the residence of the husband, abused the husband and his mother

in very vulgar and filthy language and when the husband questioned them as

to why they were hurling the abuses, the goondas picked up the sticks and

assaulted the husband and his mother. It is pleaded that the acts on the part of

the wife caused great mental trauma to the husband and, in the circumstances

of the case, the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of

cruelty.

3. The wife filed the written statement and denied the case of the

husband. Every adverse allegation that was levelled against the wife was

denied by her. The wife pleaded that she was admitted in Lata Mangeshkar

FCA.288.14

Hospital during her pregnancy and thereafter she resided in her parents' house

for medical treatment. It is pleaded that within a short time, ie, on 27.10.2007,

the husband and his relatives, ie, his mother and sister forcibly drove her out

from the matrimonial home for not fulfilling their unlawful demands. It is

pleaded that since the wife was driven out from the matrimonial home, she

was forced to reside in her parental home. It is pleaded that the husband had

forcibly obtained the gold ornaments of the wife, valued Rs.50,000/- along

with clothes and sarees and after mercilessly beating her, had driven her out of

the house. It is pleaded that the wife was treated with cruelty immediately

after a few days of the marriage for not fulfilling the illegal demands. It is

pleaded that the wife, her mother and her close relatives tried to convince the

husband but, the husband did not allow the wife to reside in the matrimonial

home. The wife sought for the dismissal of the petition. The wife had also

filed a petition for grant of maintenance but, we are not referring to the

pleadings and the part of the judgment which directs the husband to pay the

monthly maintenance to the wife and child as the husband has not challenged

that part of the decree passed by the Family Court.

4. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Family Court framed the

issues. The husband tendered his evidence and also examined Shri Tanmay

Giri and Vinayak Hadke. The wife examined herself and closed the evidence

FCA.288.14

on her side. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Family Court

dismissed the petition filed by the husband. The husband has challenged the

judgment, so far as it rejects the petition filed by the husband for a decree of

divorce on the ground of cruelty.

5. Shri Mathew, the learned counsel for the husband, submitted that the

Family Court was not justified in rejecting the petition filed by the husband. It

is submitted that the husband had proved the allegations levelled by him

against the wife and the acts on the part of the wife, as pleaded by the

husband, were enough to prove that the wife had treated him with cruelty. It

is submitted that the wife had not shown her willingness to join the company

of the husband by making a statement in the written statement in that regard.

It is submitted that the Family Court was not justified in dismissing the petition

for divorce on the ground that the husband had failed to prove the allegations

levelled by him against the wife. It is submitted that though the husband had

not sought a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, the husband is

entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. It is submitted that

though in the petition, it was not specifically pleaded that the wife had

deserted the husband and was staying away from him without any just or

reasonable excuse, it is apparent from the evidence of the parties that the wife

had left the company of the husband without any reasonable excuse. It is

FCA.288.14

submitted that the wife had stated that she was ready to join the company of

the husband but the statement of the wife was hollow and the Court did not

consider whether the wife really intended to join the company of the husband.

It is submitted that the wife had till the tendering of the oral evidence never

expressed her intention to reside with the husband and even during the

pendency of the proceedings, she had not filed a petition for restitution of

conjugal rights. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, the Family

Court was not inclined to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty,

the Family Court ought to have granted a decree of divorce on the ground of

desertion. It is stated that after the filing of the petition by the husband, the

wife has mischievously filed proceedings against the husband and his family

members under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and has

made several prayers therein. It is submitted that the conduct on the part of

the wife to file the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act and to claim that she is ready to reside with the husband in the

matrimonial home, cannot go hand in hand. It is submitted that since the

parties are residing separately for a period of nine years, this Court may grant

a decree of divorce, as the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken

down. The learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the

decree of divorce needs to be granted.

FCA.288.14

6. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the wife, supported the judgment of

the Family Court. It is submitted that the Family Court has after considering

the evidence on record, recorded a clear finding that the husband has failed to

prove that the wife had treated him with cruelty. It is submitted that the

Family Court has, while holding that the husband has failed to prove his case

on the ground of cruelty, appreciated the evidence tendered by the parties in a

just and proper manner. It is submitted that since the petition was filed within

a period of two years of separation of the husband and the wife, the Family

Court rightly held that the petition under section 13(1)(ib) was not

maintainable. It is submitted that apart from mentioning the provisions of

Section 13(1)(ib) in the cause title, the husband had not pleaded in the

petition that the wife was residing separately from the husband for a period of

two years without any just or reasonable excuse. It is submitted that there are

no pleadings pertaining to desertion by the wife in the petition filed by the

husband. It is submitted that the Family Court, rightly came to a conclusion

that the husband had treated the wife with cruelty and the husband was taking

advantage of his own wrong. It is submitted that even after the judgment was

rendered by the Family Court, the wife took her daughter to the matrimonial

home with an intention to reside with the husband but, the husband did not

permit her to enter into the house and filed the suit for injunction restraining

the wife from entering into the matrimonial home after making a complaint

FCA.288.14

against the wife in the police station. It is submitted that in the proceedings

filed by the wife against the husband and his family members under the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the wife has only sought a

right of residence and has sought some compensation. It is submitted that the

wife has not made any prayer that the husband should be punished. It is

submitted that though the wife desired to join the company of the husband

and made efforts in that regard from time to time, the husband had not

permitted her to join his company and in this background, it cannot be said

that the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down and the

parties are living separately for about nine years. It is submitted that in the

circumstances of the case when the Family Court has considered the evidence

of the parties in the right perspective, the Family Court Appeal is liable to be

dismissed. The learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the family court

appeal.

7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the

following points arise for determination in this Family Court Appeal :-

I) Whether the husband has proved that the wife had treated him with

cruelty?

II) Whether the husband is successful in proving that the wife had deserted

him without any just or reasonable excuse?

FCA.288.14

III) Whether the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce?

IV) What order?

8. To answer the aforesaid points, it would be necessary to consider the

pleadings of the parties and the evidence tendered by them. We have narrated

the pleadings of the parties in detail in the earlier part of the judgment. The

husband entered into the witness box and reiterated the facts stated by him in

the petition, in his examination-in-chief. The husband was cross-examined on

behalf of the wife. The husband admitted in his cross-examination that he had

not filed any documents on record to show that the brother of the wife and

others had been to the house of the husband and had assaulted him and his

family members. The husband admitted that he had not lodged any complaint

before the police authorities in regard to the incident of the brother of the wife

assaulting him and his family members. The husband admitted in his cross-

examination that after he issued a notice to the wife on 28.11.2008, the wife

replied to the said notice and stated therein that the husband should come to

her parental home to take her back to the matrimonial home. The husband

admitted that he did not go the parental home of the wife to bring her back to

the matrimonial home. The husband admitted that on 27.10.2007, when the

wife left the matrimonial home he did not issue any notice to her asking her to

return to the matrimonial home. The husband admitted that the wife's father

FCA.288.14

was no more and the wife was not doing any job either in government or

private sector. The husband denied the suggestion that on 04.11.2007,

05.11.2007 and 06.11.2007, the wife and her mother had come to the

matrimonial home so that the wife could reside with him. The husband

admitted that prior to 21.10.2007, the wife had once gone for medical check-

up and then to her mother's place but, she had returned to the matrimonial

home. The husband denied the suggestion that he used to demand Rs.50,000/-

from the family members of the wife for paying the installments of loan. The

husband denied the suggestion that on the failure on the part of the wife to

fulfill the demand, he had assaulted her and expelled her from the home. The

husband denied that the wife had lodged a report against him. The husband

admitted that he had received a notice from Mahila Cell attached to the

Sakkardara police station and that he had appeared before the Mahila Cell.

The husband admitted that the wife is looking after the education of their

daughter. He however denied the suggestion that the petition was filed by him

with a view to harass her. The husband had denied that he had levelled false

allegations against the wife that she used to demand a cellphone and that she

never cooked food for him. The husband denied that he had filed a false

affidavit.

9. The husband examined Shri Tanmay Giri, who knew the husband and

FCA.288.14

his family members. The witness stated in his examination-in-chief that in

June-2008, while he was returning to his house, he saw some people abusing

the husband and his mother. The witness stated that the wife was present

there and there were some goondas along with the brother of the wife. The

witness further stated that the goondas assaulted the husband and his mother

with sticks and he tried to control the mob. Tanmay Giri was cross-examined

on behalf of the wife. He admitted in his cross-examination that the husband

was one of his friends and, therefore, he was familiar with the husband. He

admitted that on two-three occasions, he had visited the house of the husband.

He stated that he had not attended the marriage of the husband. He stated

that he does not know whether in June-2008, the husband and the wife were

living together or not. He further admitted that the counsel for the husband

brought a typed affidavit of the witness and, thereafter he had signed below it.

He stated that he was called to depose about the incident as it occurred in his

presence. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not inform the

police about the incident. He stated in his cross-examination that he tried to

calm down the mob to certain extent. He denied the suggestion that no such

incident had occurred and he was falsely deposing at the instance of the

husband.

10. The husband examined Vinayak Hadke to prove that in the month of

FCA.288.14

June-2008, the wife, her brother and three-four goondas came to the house of

the husband, they abused the husband and his mother and started beating

them with sticks. In the cross-examination, Vinayak Hadke admitted that his

relationship with the husband is cordial. He stated that he did not know

whether any police complaint was lodged in respect of the incident of

June-2008 in the police station. He stated that he cannot state any reason for

not lodging of the complaint. He admitted that if there is some noise at the

outer door of the house of the husband, the sound cannot be heard from

within his house. He stated that he was present at the marriage of the

husband but he did not know that the wife had left the matrimonial home. He

stated that there were some disputes between the parties but, he cannot state

as to when the wife left the matrimonial home. He admitted that he came to

the Court on the call of the husband but, he denied the suggestion that the

incident of June-2008, did not occur in his presence.

11. The wife examined herself and closed the evidence of her side. The

wife reiterated the facts stated by her in the written statement, in her evidence

on affidavit. The wife stated in her evidence that initially the husband and his

family members treated the wife well but, after a month, they started

demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the parents of the wife, on the pretext

that the husband had to pay installments for the plot purchased by him. The

wife stated that she was not permitted to watch the Television and was asked

FCA.288.14

to do the household work for the entire day. It is pleaded that the husband and

his sisters used to harass the wife and also assault her, on occasions. It is

pleaded that on 30.03.2008 the husband and his family members had

assaulted the wife severely and had threatened that she would be killed. The

wife pleaded that on 05.11.2007, the husband and his family members

snatched the mangalsootra, gold chain, gold earring and the two finger rings

from the wife and dropped her at 12.00 midnight in her paternal home. It is

pleaded that the husband did not visit her parental home to see their newly-

born daughter and informed the wife that she would not be permitted to

reside in the matrimonial home unless she brings a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from

her parents. The wife was cross-examined on behalf of the husband. The wife

stated that the house of the husband comprised of five rooms - four on the

ground floor and one in first floor. The wife denied the suggestion that there

was a Television in her bed-room. The wife admitted that before her marriage

she was serving in New English High School, as a Computer Teacher. The wife

admitted that the quarrel between the husband and the wife was due to the

instigation by the sister and the mother of the husband. The wife stated that

the mother and the sister of her husband always found fault in her cooking

and household work. The wife admitted that she was not always beaten up by

the husband under the influence of liquor but, occasionally she was beaten

up by him. The wife stated in her cross-examination that her in-laws did not

FCA.288.14

permit her to take the meals. She further stated that the husband, his two

sisters and his mother always taunted her that she had not brought enough

andhan articles from her paternal home. The wife stated that she was

assaulted on 27.10.2007 and she did not receive any medical treatment after

the said beating. The wife stated that her parents could not fulfill the illegal

demand of the husband and, therefore, she was not permitted to reside in the

matrimonial home. The wife admitted that in her absence, her mother-in-law

used to prepare food for her husband. The wife stated in her cross-examination

that though cruelty was inflicted on her by the husband, she was ready and

willing to reside with the husband because her mother was old and there was

nobody to look after her and her daughter. The wife denied the suggestion that

her brother had assaulted the husband. The wife denied that her brother is a

criminal and that she or her relatives had not made any attempts for

reconciliation.

12. On a reading of the evidence of the parties, it is clear that the

husband has not satisfactorily proved that the wife had treated him with

cruelty. The husband had stated in his evidence that the wife used to pick up

quarrels with the husband without any rhyme or reason and abused the

husband and his mother in filthy language. The husband has stated in his

evidence that the wife did not do the household work and cook for the

FCA.288.14

husband though he had to leave for his office in the morning. The husband

has stated that the act on the part of the wife of abusing the husband and his

family members in filthy language, caused great agony to the husband. The

husband has stated that the wife had left the matrimonial home in October,

2007 and after returning to the same, she had again left the matrimonial home

on 27.10.2007 by staying with the family members only for five days. The

husband has stated that in the month of June 2008, the brother of the wife

had come to the matrimonial home along with three/four goondas and had

abused the husband and his mother in filthy language and the husband and

his mother were beaten up by the goons with sticks. The husband has stated

that the wife had left the matrimonial home without any just or reasonable

excuse and was not ready to reside with the husband. The cross-examination

of the husband, however, shattered a part of the evidence of the husband. The

husband admitted in his cross-examination that he had not filed any

documents on record to show that the brother of the wife had assaulted him

and his mother by entering into the matrimonial home after the wife had left

the same. The husband admitted that he had not lodged any complaint against

the brother of the wife in the Police Station. The husband admitted that the

expenses for the delivery were borne by the relatives of the wife. The husband

further admitted that on 28.11.2008 when he had served a notice on the wife

through his counsel, the wife had replied the notice and had asked the

FCA.288.14

husband to come to her parental home to take her back to the matrimonial

home. The husband admitted that though he had received the reply of the

wife, he never went to the parental home of the wife to bring her back to the

matrimonial home. The husband admitted that after 28.1.2007 when the wife

left the matrimonial home, he never served any notice on the wife asking her

to return to the matrimonial home. Though the husband had denied that he

had demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the parents of the wife, and had

assaulted the wife for not fulfilling the demand, he had admitted that he had

received the notice from the Mahila Cell attached to the Sakkardara Police

Station and that he had appeared before the Cell. The husband admitted that

there was no joint meeting between the relatives on the side of the husband

and the relatives on the side of the wife after the wife left the matrimonial

home. The husband however denied that he had tendered a false affidavit.

13. The Family Court has weighed the evidence of the husband on one

hand and the evidence of the wife on the other, to hold that the husband has

failed to prove that wife had treated him with cruelty or deserted him. The

admission on the part of the husband that he had not bothered to bring back

the wife to the matrimonial home after she left the same on 27.10.2007

shows that the husband was not interested in residing with the wife under

one roof. It appears from the evidence of the parties that after the wife

FCA.288.14

delivered the child, the husband did not take any steps to bring the wife to the

matrimonial home along with the child. The husband had made a show of

serving the notice on the wife to return to the matrimonial home without

going to the parental home of wife, to bring her back. After the wife asked

the husband to take her to matrimonial home along with the child, the

husband did not go to the parental home of the wife at all. Apart from his

evidence, the husband had examined S/Shri Tanmay Giri and Shri Vinayak

Hadke. These witnesses are examined by the husband to prove that in June

2008, the brother of the wife had been to the matrimonial home along with

3/4 goondas and the goondas had hurled abuses and had beaten up the

husband and his mother with sticks. Tanmay stated in his evidence that when

he was returning to his house some time in June 2008, he saw some people

abusing the husband and his mother and they were also beating the husband

and his mother with sticks. Tanmay was cross-examined on behalf of the

husband. Tanmay admitted that he does not know whether in June 2008

when the incident occurred, the wife was residing with the husband in the

matrimonial home. Tanmay fairly admitted in his cross-examination that the

counsel for the husband had brought a typed affidavit to him and he had

signed the typed affidavit as he was called by the husband to depose on his

behalf. He admitted that he did not inform the police about the incident

though, according to him, the brother of the wife and other goondas had

FCA.288.14

beaten up the husband and his mother in June,2008. It is apparent from the

cross--examination of Tanmay that Tanmay has deposed what was told to him

by the husband. Tanmay appears to have blindly signed the affidavit that was

prepared by the counsel for the husband as he was asked by the husband to

depose on his behalf. Vinayak Hadke, the other witness examined on behalf of

the husband, has also stated that in June 2008, he had witnessed the brother

of the wife and 3/4 other persons beating up the husband and his mother. In

his cross-examination, Vinayak admitted that he had not filed any police

complaint, in respect of the incident of June,2008. He further admitted that

he does not know whether any police complaint was lodged by the husband

in respect of the incident. The witness admitted that he did not know the

cause of the wife leaving the house of the husband. This witness was not able

to state as to when the wife left the matrimonial home. This witness also

fairly admitted that he came to the Court on the call of the husband. The

Family Court did not believe the evidence of the husband and his two

witnesses, especially after considering the evidence of the witnesses in their

cross-examination that they were asked by the husband to depose in regard

to the incident of June 2008. If at all the brother of the wife and 3-4 goondas

had beaten up the husband and his mother, surely there would have been a

police complaint in that regard. However nothing is placed on record by the

husband, in the form of documents to show that he and his mother were

FCA.288.14

beaten by the brother of the wife and the goondas in June, 2008. In the

absence of any cogent evidence in that regard, even if we assume that the

said evidence is trustworthy and the husband has proved the same, cruelty

cannot be attributed to the wife on the basis of the same as it is not the case

of the husband that the wife had sent her brother and the goondas to his

house so that he and his mother could be beaten up. The Family Court has

held and rightly so, that all the other allegations made against the wife are

of general nature and no specific instances are stated by the husband in his

pleadings, pertaining to the acts of cruelty by the wife. The husband has

stated in his evidence that the wife was not preparing the food, that she was

not doing the household work properly, that she was abusing the husband

and his mother and sisters, etc. It is not stated that on which day and in what

manner the wife abused the husband and his relatives and what was the

reason for doing so. The Family Court has rightly held that the allegations

made by the husband that the wife did not cook the food for the husband

and was quarreling with the husband without any rhyme or reason are

extremely general in nature and they would not be instances which could

prove that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty.

14. The Family Court rightly held that the parties had not separated for

a period of two years before the husband filed the petition for desertion.

Though the husband has stated in the cause-title of the petition that the

FCA.288.14

husband has filed the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and

desertion, there are no pleadings in regard to desertion. The husband has not

pleaded that the wife had left the matrimonial home on 27.10.2007, without

any just or reasonable excuse. It is not the case of the husband that the wife

had left the matrimonial home on the said date, with a view to break the

matrimonial tie. In the absence of any pleadings on the ground of desertion,

the wife did not have any opportunity to defend the said ground. The wife has

however stated in her evidence that she does not desire to leave the

matrimonial home and that she was compelled to leave the same on

27.10.2007. The submission made on behalf of the husband that the wife

never desired to join the company of the husband and for the first time she

has made an attempt to show her willingness in her evidence, is not worthy

of acceptance. It is apparent from a reading of the written statement of the

wife that the wife was not inclined to break the matrimonial tie. The cross-

examination of the husband shatters the case of the husband that though the

husband desired that the wife should reside in the matrimonial home, the

wife refused to do so. The husband has clearly admitted that the wife had

replied to the legal notice served by the husband on her and though the wife

had asked the husband to come to her parental home to take her back to the

matrimonial home, he had never gone to the parental home of the wife after

27.10.2007 to bring her back. The husband has further admitted that after

FCA.288.14

27.10.2007 he had never served any notice on the wife, asking her to return

to the matrimonial home. It is apparent from the evidence of the parties that

the wife had not deserted the husband without any just or reasonable excuse.

In fact, the wife had gone to her parental home for the delivery of the child

and after the child was delivered, the husband never went to her parental

home to ensure that the wife and the child returned to the matrimonial home.

Neither is the factum of desertion of two years proved by the husband nor

has the husband proved the factum of animus deserendi. Merely because the

parties are living separately for a period of more than nine years, a decree of

divorce cannot be granted, especially when the husband has failed to prove

that the wife has treated him with cruelty or has deserted him without any

just or reasonable excuse. While recording the aforesaid findings, we are

not inclined to accept the case of the husband that the wife had filed the

proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

against the husband and his family members, with a view to harass them.

The wife wanted to reside in the matrimonial home and, therefore, she had

filed the said proceedings mainly with the prayer that she should be permitted

to reside with her husband and should be given a right of residence. Merely

because an ancillary prayer for grant of some compensation is made, it

cannot be said that the wife has filed the proceedings against the husband,

with a view to harass him. In this case, the wife has never approached the

FCA.288.14

police authorities with a complaint against the husband for the offence

punishable under section 498-A of the Penal Code. We find that the husband

has refused to accept the wife though she is ready and willing to reside in the

matrimonial home. The husband went to the extent of filing a suit for

injunction restraining the wife from entering into the matrimonial home. In

the circumstances of the case, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment

of the Family Court, in this Appeal.

15. Hence, we dismiss the Family Court Appeal, with no order as to

costs.

                 JUDGE                                 JUDGE

sahare