Bombay High Court

Vaibhav Sukram Chaudhari vs Jyoti Suresh Chaudhari on 10 October, 2025

Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi

Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi

2025:BHC-AUG:28535-DB


                                                   {1}                      FCA-86-2024

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2024

              Vaibhav @ Gunvant Sukram Chaudhari
              Occ- Government Service, Age 33 Yrs,
              Res- A 1204, Samrat Gokuldhan Society
              Hirawadi, Nashik, Dist. Nashik 422003
              Mob 9561743787, vsccivil@gmail                   ...APPELLANT
                                                               [Ori. Respondent]

                       VERSUS

              Jyoti @ Jidnyasa w/o Vaibhav @ Gunvant
              Chaudhari
              Occ- Contractor, Age 27 Yrs,
              R/o. C/o Suresh Vitthal Chaudhari,
              Plot No. 28, Mohini Raj Puram,
              Bhagat Singh Nagar Road, Harsool,
              Tal & Dist. Aurangabad.                          ...RESPONDENT
                                                               [Ori. Petitioner]
                                               ALONG WITH
                                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2811 OF 2025
                                                  WITH
                                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12927 OF 2024
                                                   IN
                                   FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2024
                                                  WITH
                                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6687 OF 2025
                                                   IN
                             FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 13043 OF 2025
                                                  WITH
                             FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 13043 OF 2025

              Appellant/ party-in-person present
              Mr. Shaikh Mohammad Naseer, Advocate for the respondent
                                               .......
                                     CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                              SMT. VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.J.

                                         RESERVED ON :  11th SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                         PRONOUNCED ON: 10th OCTOBER, 2025

              Bhagyawant Punde
                                         {2}                         FCA-86-2024

JUDGMENT:

[PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

1. Family Court Appeal No.86 of 2024 is filed under Section

19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, by the appellant/husband challenging

the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Aurangabad in

Petition No. A-321 of 2022 dated 06.03.2024.

2. Family Court Appeal (Stamp) No.13043 of 2025 is filed by

the appellant Jyoti against rejection of her prayer by the Family Court

to return her stridhan. For the sake of convenience, appellant and

respondent are hereinafter referred as "Vaibhav" and "Jyoti".

3. Facts in brief, leading to this appeal can be stated thus:

Jyoti filed petition under Section 13(1)(i)(i-a) and (i-b) of

the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce against Vaibhav inter alia

contending that their marriage was solemnized on 01.07.2017 at

Chalisgaon as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, Jyoti

went for cohabitation in the joint family of Vaibhav at Jamner, Dist.

Jalgaon. On 06.07.2017, as per prevailing custom, she returned to her

maternal house. On 09.07.2017, Vaibhav came to her maternal house

for MPSC examination. On that day in the evening Vaibhav and Jyoti

went to Nashik at the house of her maternal uncle and they stayed

there for four to five days. Jyoti was unable to clear few subjects of her

engineering, therefore, she could not get admission in the 4 th year. On

Bhagyawant Punde {3} FCA-86-2024

17.07.2017, again they went to matrimonial house which was a rented

house of two rooms at Jamner. Five persons were staying in the said

house.

4. At the time of marriage, Jyoti had finished her Civil

Engineering Diploma and was appearing in 3rd year of Engineering.

Vaibhav was made aware that Jyoti is interested in continuing the

education. He agreed to get transfer at Nashik. Therefore, marriage

was solemnized between them. Vaibhav did not gift anything in the

marriage except mangalsutra of three grams and Jodwe. Parents of

Vaibhav were of the view that since he is Class-II officer and Jyoti is

the only child to her parents, they would gift car and golden ornaments

in the marriage. After the marriage, they started teasing her on that

count and mentally harassed her. When she went to Jamner for

cohabitation they did not treat her properly. Vaibhav was of the opinion

that he shall take license and contract in the name of Jyoti and his

brother would do the business. Therefore, he was creating obstructions

in her further education.

5. Vaibhav was to attend training from 08.08.2017 to

09.09.2017 in WALMI, Aurangabad, therefore after the Raksha

Bandhan ceremony on 07.08.2017, Vaibhav and Jyoti came to the

parental house of Jyoti at Aurangabad. Vaibhav asked Jyoti to stay in

Bhagyawant Punde {4} FCA-86-2024

the parental house as he could meet her in the weekend.

6. Vaibhav is Class-II Government Officer. In his rental house

of two rooms he and Jyoti were not getting privacy. Therefore, Vaibhav

took another house of three rooms on rent. His mother did not like it.

His parents and brother started teasing him that he is dancing on the

tunes of Jyoti. They started polluting his mind against Jyoti. Vaibhav

started abusing Jyoti at the instance of his parents. He also started

quarreling with her on small issues.

7. Jyoti had taken room at Nashik for education. Vaibhav had

chosen the said room. Jyoti's father was paying the entire expenses of

her education and rent of the room. Vaibhav was not in favour of Jyoti

staying at Nashik. Since it was decided prior to the marriage that

Vaibhav would not oppose for Jyoti's further education, initially he

allowed her to take room. However, he started asking her to come to

Jamner and stay there. He use to make Whatsapp calls continuously to

see who is with her, what clothes she is wearing, whether or not she is

wearing Mangalsutra and applied Sindoor etc. He asked her not to talk

to a particular friend, not to wear particular dresses, not to go at a

particular place, thereby he caused mental cruelty to her.

8. On 14.09.2017, Vaibhav called her from Nashik to her

Bhagyawant Punde {5} FCA-86-2024

maternal house at Aurangabad and from there he asked to come to

Jamner on 24.09.2017 for Dassehra Festival. On 06.10.2017, they

both went to Nashik, however, he compelled her to pay all the

travelling expenses. They went to the house of his aunt at Nashik.

After reaching there Jyoti cooked food, cleaned the utensils and

thereafter requested him to go to her room in the night as the house

of his aunt was very small. Vaibhav raised quarrel with her saying that

he would not come to that room. Thereafter on the say of his aunt, he

went to her room. On that day, Vaibhav did not allow Jyoti to go to the

examination of Railway Civil Engineering and because of that she

suffered great loss. On 20.10.2017, Jyoti went to Aurangabad for

Bhaubeej festival along with her parents and uncle. At that time

Vaibhav abused her father. Though, it was decided that Vaibhav would

not prevent her from taking education, he always created obstacles in

her education. He started defaming her saying that she is having illicit

relations with 4-5 boys at a time and that she shall not be sent alone

for education.

9. Vaibhav demanded Rs. 20 Lakhs from Jyoti for his transfer

at Nashik and for construction of house. He told her that unless she

brings Rs. 20 Lakhs he would not allow her to go to Nashik for

education. He started suspecting her character saying that she is

Bhagyawant Punde {6} FCA-86-2024

having illicit affairs. He used to say that his sister cleans utensils at her

matrimonial home and Jyoti also should do that. Vaibhav and his

parents were saying that other girls were available and ready to give

dowry of Rs. 30 Lakhs to him, but they chose her with an expectation

that her parents would gift lot of gold, household articles and four

wheeler vehicle in the marriage.

10. On 22.12.2017, Vaibhav and his father sent Jyoti to her

parental house. Vaibhav abused her parents saying that he would not

take her back. On 15.01.2018, a meeting of relatives from both the

sides took place at Chalisgaon. Vaibhav agreed in the said meeting

that he would not ill treat and beat Jyoti in future. Relying on his

words, on 15.01.2018, Jyoti went to Jamner with Vaibhav On

22.01.2018, her father took her to Thane for examination. After the

examination on 24.01.2018 he called Vaibhav and asked him to take

her with him. At that time, Vaibhav abused Jyoti and her father on

phone. Jyoti also requested him to take her with him. At that time,

Vaibhav replied that he is busy and he would not take her back as he is

not interested to stay with her. In spite of her repeated requests he did

not take her for cohabitation. Thereafter on 17.03.2018, he issued

legal notice to her for divorce making false allegations. Jyoti replied

the said notice on 17.04.2018. Then she filed complaint in Women Cell

Bhagyawant Punde {7} FCA-86-2024

and FIR under Section 498-A of IPC. Vaibhav filed divorce petition in

Jalgaon Court. The same was transferred to Family Court, Aurangabad

and renumbered as Petition No. A-360 of 2019. In the said petition

interim maintenance @ Rs. 6,000/- per month was awarded. Since

Vaibhav did not pay the maintenance, divorce petition was dismissed

with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. Jyoti therefore contended that Vaibhav and

his parents subjected her to cruelty and compelled her to stay

separately. Vaibhav did not take her responsibility. Since Jyoti is taking

education she has no source of income. She filed POWDV Petition No.

536 of 2018 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class for

maintenance. Interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month was

awarded to her, but Vaibhav was not paying the said amount.

11. On 20.08.2021, Vaibhav has illegally performed second

marriage with one Janhavi Sanjay Chaudhary in Krishidhan Hotel,

Mumbai-Agra Highway, Ozar Mig, Tq. Nifad, Dist. Nashik. He is leading

immoral life with her. He has subjected Jyoti to cruelty and deserted

her. He has not paid interim maintenance and has totally neglected

her. Because of cruel treatment, Jyoti is completely depressed. By

performing second marriage, Vaibhav has caused her mental torture.

For these reasons it is impossible for her to continue the matrimonial

tie with him. Therefore, she prayed for dissolution of marriage and

Bhagyawant Punde {8} FCA-86-2024

claimed an amount of Rs. 40 Lakhs towards permanent alimony and

return of her stridhan articles which she has described in her evidence.

She has also given the list of expenditure incurred for the marriage.

She has also given description of the properties of Vaibhav and his

father. She further claimed that Vaibhav is Class-II officer in

Government service having salary of Rs. 90,000/- per month. His

family is running business of furniture in the name of Ratna Furniture.

Father and brother of Vaibhav are doing private job and getting salary.

Nobody was dependent on him, therefore, he is in a position to pay Rs.

40 Lakhs towards permanent alimony.

12. Vaibhav opposed the petition by filing written statement

Exhibit-19 and denied the allegations levelled against him. He stated

that DV Act proceedings filed by Jyoti bearing No. 536 of 2018 has

been dismissed after trial on 02.11.2023. In the said judgment Trial

Court has observed that no domestic violence has taken place.

Therefore, pleadings of the Jyoti of cruelty against her are false. He

claimed that Jyoti is not legally wedded wife. Their marriage did not

take place as per Hindu rites and customs. On 01.07.2017 , when the

Saptapadi was performed, there was storm in the afternoon, because

of that sacred fire could not be ignited in the homa. Saptapadi was

therefore performed without sacred fire. As per Section 7 of Hindu

Bhagyawant Punde {9} FCA-86-2024

Marriage Act, ceremonies of Hindu marriage include Saptapadi and

therefore marriage between Vaibhav and Jyoti is incomplete and not

binding on him. Jyoti has not produced any marriage certificate or

legal document to show that marriage dated 01.07.2017 is complete

and binding on each other. Jyoti was not ready to stay with his

parents. She was continuously demanding separate residence from the

matrimonial house. Since his parents are totally dependent on him, it

was not possible for him to leave them. Therefore, instead of residing

at matrimonial home at Jamner, Jyoti was residing at Nashik without

any reason. Jyoti asked Vaibhav not to look after his parents and

family. Jyoti purposely avoided sexual intercourse with him. Said

refusal amounts to cruelty. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the

petition filed by Jyoti.

13. The alleged second wife of Vaibhav namely Janhavi was

arrayed as respondent No. 2. Though served she did not appear and

matter proceeded ex parte against her.

14. After recording evidence, Family Court dissolved the

marriage between Vaibhav and Jyoti and directed Vaibhav to pay an

amount of Rs. 30 Lakhs to Jyoti towards permanent alimony under

Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act within one month. The prayer of Jyoti

for return of stridhan was rejected. Vaibhav is aggrieved by this

Bhagyawant Punde {10} FCA-86-2024

judgment.

15. Heard Vaibhav being party-in-person and learned advocate

representing Jyoti. We have perused the record as well as written

statement filed on record by Vaibhav and citations relied upon by him.

16. After hearing rival contentions following points arise for our

consideration;

(i) Whether the Family Court is justified in dissolving the marriage between Vaibhav and Jyoti?

(ii) Whether the Family Court is justified in awarding permanent alimony of Rs. 30 Lakhs?

17. In support of petition Jyoti examined herself at Exhibit-5.

She has filed her evidence affidavit in verbatim reproducing her

averments in the petition. She has produced following documents.

           (i)          Marriage Invitation (Exhibit-44)
           (ii)         Two photos of Marriage (Exhibit-45)
           (iii)        Complaint dated 12.06.2018 given to Women
                        Cell (Exhibit-46)
           (iv)         List of articles given to Vaibhav in marriage
                        (Exhibit-47)
           (v)          Two receipts of ornaments (Exhibit-48)
           (vi)         Receipt of purchase of Samsung phone and
                        headphone (Exhibit-49)
           (vii)        15 photos of Engagement and Marriage
                        (Exhibit-50 collectively)
           (viii)       Receipt of Swarsamrat Band (Exhibit-51)
           (ix)         Information sheet and menu of engagement of


Bhagyawant Punde
                                        {11}                      FCA-86-2024

                       Kaustubh Kalyani Caterers (Exhibit-52)
           (x)         11 Receipts of purchase of wedding clothes
                       (Exhibit-53 collectively)
           (xi)        Receipts of Shiv Caterers of wedding and other
                       receipts (Exhibit-54 collectively)
           (xii)       8 photos of Vaibhav's second marriage
                       (Exhibit-55) collectively
           (xiii)      Photos of Vaibhav with second wife (since said
                       photos are objectionable they were kept in

sealed envelope. If needed said envelope will be opened) (Exhibit-56 collectively)

(xiv) Printout of Whatsapp chats of Vaibhav and his second Janhavi (Exhibit-57 collectively)

(xv) Pendrive containing video recording of wedding of Vaibhav and Janhavi and chatting.

18. In her cross examination Vaibhav tried to bring on record

discrepancies in her contentions raised in the petition, complaint made

under Section 498-A and DV Act proceedings. She denied that in 498-A

proceedings she has alleged that Vaibhav's father used to ask her to

bring Rs. 20 Lakhs for purchasing motorcycle and house. She admitted

that in DV Act proceedings she has written that Vaibhav was asking Rs.

20 Lakhs for his transfer. In the present matter in her evidence

affidavit she has stated that for transfer and construction of house,

demand of Rs. 20 Lakhs was made. She also admitted that as she

could not pass in one subject she did not take admission in the college

after marriage. She used to attend the private classes at Nashik. She

attended the classes between 1st/ 2nd September, 2017 to 24th

Bhagyawant Punde {12} FCA-86-2024

September, 2017. She gave examination of remaining subjects in

May/June-2018 and for that examination Vaibhav did not obstruct. She

also admitted that from 20.01.2018 she was staying at maternal

home. Since then she and Vaibhav did not have physical relations and

they did not stay in one room. She denied the suggestion that she has

made false accusations against Vaibhav that since 20.08.2021 he is

leading adulterous life. She admitted that she has not personally

witnessed the marriage ceremony of Vaibhav and Janhavi. She

however stated that she has seen physical relations between Vaibhav

and Janhavi from the video in the mobile phone of Vaibhav. She has

filed in the Court video of marriage between Vaibhav and Janhavi. She

admitted that on 04.10.2021 she snatched Vaibhav's cell phone. She

further admitted that thereafter for a period of one month his phone

was with her. Thereafter she filed complaint under Section 494 of IPC.

After snatching of phone there was no contact between her and

Vaibhav. In August-2023 she filed her evidence affidavit at that time

she was not taking education. Since Vaibhav filed divorce proceeding

she did not go for cohabitation.

19. Vaibhav examined himself by filing evidence affidavit at

Exhibit-81 reiterating his contentions in the written statement.

In the cross examination he admitted that he has not

Bhagyawant Punde {13} FCA-86-2024

claimed dissolution of marriage as at the time of Saptapadi sacred fire

of homa was not burning. He admitted that no such contention was

raised by him in his petition filed for dissolution of marriage. He

admitted that his father had purchased two plots at Jamner. He also

admitted that his father owns agricultural land at Jamner, but denied

that any income is there from the said land. He admitted his

photographs with Janhavi, their boarding passes of Indigo company of

travelling to Andaman and their photographs of travelling etc. He also

admitted that he and Janhavi celebrated their son Advit's birthday on

04.11.2023. He further denied that there were physical relations

between him and Janhavi. He insisted that Advit was born without their

physical relations. He further admitted that he is biological father of

Advit. Some part of his cross examination was taken in camera

wherein videos of his marriage with Janhavi etc. were shown to him.

He said that he is not in a position to tell whether in the said videos he

and Janhavi are there. His training at WALMI was between 08.08.2017

to 09.09.2017. Prior to 08.08.2017 for some time Jyoti was at Jamner

and for some time she was at Aurangabad. At the time of marriage

Jyoti had completed civil engineering diploma. He admitted that while

Jyoti was staying at Nashik, her room's rent was paid by her father. He

admitted that since Jyoti started residing separately, till the Court

directed him to pay maintenance he did not pay any money to her. He

Bhagyawant Punde {14} FCA-86-2024

admitted that since January-2018 he and Jyoti are staying separately.

He is not in position to pay Rs. 40 Lakhs alimony.

20. Vaibhav examined his father Sukram Chaudhari at Exhibit-

128. He claimed that responsibility of entire family is on Vaibhav. After

the marriage Jyoti was not ready to reside in joint family and her

parents supported her for that purpose. She was repeatedly deserting

Vaibhav and staying at maternal home. At the time of Vaibhav's

training at Aurangabad instead of staying at matrimonial home she

was staying at maternal home. After the training was over her father

rented a room for her at Nashik. Jyoti and her parents were bringing

pressure on Vaibhav for staying separately. Jyoti went for Diwali

festival of 2017 and after that her parents refused to send her for

cohabitation. In December-2017 when he went to bring Jyoti her

parents refused to send her and told him that till Vaibhav stays

separately they will not send Jyoti for cohabitation. In January there

was meeting of senior members of both the families. Then Jyoti was

sent for cohabitation. Thereafter, within 4-5 days Jyoti's father came to

take her for examination. Thereafter, they tried to bring her for

cohabitation but she did not come. Since 20.01.2018 Jyoti is staying

separately as per her wish.

21. In the cross examination he denied that he and his family

Bhagyawant Punde {15} FCA-86-2024

staying with Vaibhav at Nashik. His second son Sagar is also staying at

Nashik. The house at Samrat society is in the name of Vaibhav and his

wife Ratnabai. He denied that a furniture license is taken in the name

of his wife Ratnabai. He admitted that from October-2019, Sagar is

serving at finance company at Pune. He denied that he is working as

Accountant at Nashik. He admitted that at the time of marriage Jyoti

was in 3rd year Engineering Course at Nashik. It was decided that her

remaining education was to be completed by her father. He admitted

that the statement in his evidence affidavit that they had not given

consent to Jyoti for staying at Nashik is correct. He further admitted

that since 20.01.2018 Vaibhav and Jyoti are staying separately.

22. On careful scrutiny of evidence on record it is clear that

Jyoti has sought divorce on three grounds i.e. (i) Cruelty, (ii)

Desertion and (iii) That Vaibhav voluntarily performed sexual

intercourse with respondent No. 2.

23. In support of ground of cruelty, Jyoti has examined herself

and has stated about the ill treatment meted out to her. But there is no

evidence of physical ill treatment albeit there is sufficient evidence of

mental cruelty. Vaibhav claimed that since there was no sacred fire in

the homa at the time of Saptapadi, their marriage itself is not valid.

This contention of Vaibhav is falsified by the photographs at Exhibit-70

Bhagyawant Punde {16} FCA-86-2024

in which fire in the homa at the time of Saptapadi can be seen. This

itself is sufficient to prove the mental cruelty on the part of Vaibhav

towards Jyoti. Fact remains that in none of the proceedings between

the parties, Vaibhav has taken this defence that their marriage was

invalid for absence of sacred fire in the homa at the time of Saptapadi.

There is evidence to show that Vaibhav was pestering Jyoti

during her stay at Nashik by continuously calling her on video calls and

verifying whether she is wearing Mangalsutra and Sindoor, with whom

she is wandering, what clothes she was wearing and his allegations

that she was having illicit relations with men also amounts to mental

cruelty. The Family Court, therefore, is justified in giving a finding that

Jyoti has proved the ground of cruelty.

24. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove the ground

of desertion. It is clear from the evidence on record that Vaibhav and

Jyoti cohabited for a short span of six to seven months intermittently.

After the marriage on 01.07.2017, Jyoti went to her maternal home as

per ritual on 06.07.2017. On 09.07.2017 Vaibhav came to her

maternal home for MPSC examination. On the same day, at evening,

Vaibhav and Jyoti went to Nashik at the house of maternal uncle where

they stayed for 4-5 days. On 17.07.2017 they again went to the

matrimonial home. Vaibhav had to attend training from 08.08.2017 to

Bhagyawant Punde {17} FCA-86-2024

09.09.2017 at WALMI, Aurangabad and therefore after Raksha

Bandhan ceremony on 07.08.2017, Vaibhav and Jyoti came to her

maternal home at Aurangabad where Vaibhav asked her to stay during

his training period so that they can meet. Admittedly, Jyoti had taken

room on rent at Nashik for education. According to her it was chosen

by Vaibhav. Her father was bearing the expenses of her education and

rent of the room. On 14.09.2017, Vaibhav called Jyoti from Nashik to

her maternal home and asked her to come to Jamner on 24.09.2017

for Dassehra festival. Thereafter on 06.10.2017 they both went to

Nashik to the house of Vaibhav's aunt. There he quarreled with Jyoti

and tried to prevent her from coming to her room. Since his aunt's

house was small, she went to her room. Thereafter on 20.10.2017

Jyoti went to Aurangabad for Bhaubeej festival. Vaibhav did not allow

Jyoti to attend Railway Civil Engineer exam on 06.12.2017. During her

stay at Nashik he used to harass her by making video calls. There is

evidence on record that on 15.01.2018 there was meeting of relatives

from both the sides at Chalisgaon and Vaibhav agreed to treat Jyoti

properly. On the same day, Jyoti came to Jamner with Vaibhav.

Thereafter, since she was to attend exam at Thane, on 22.01.2018 she

went to Thane along with her father. On 24.01.2018 her father called

Vaibhav and asked him to take Jyoti with him, but Vaibhav refused.




Bhagyawant Punde
                                      {18}                    FCA-86-2024

25. Admitted position on record is that from 20.01.2018

Vaibhav and Jyoti are staying separately from each other and

thereafter they did not come together. There is no evidence on record

to indicate that Vaibhav tried to take Jyoti for cohabitation. Jyoti filed

complaint before Women's Cell on 02.06.2018 (Exhibit-46). As per the

roznama dated 09.07.2018 of the said proceedings, Jyoti was ready for

cohabitation. Vaibhav also showed his willingness for cohabitation,

however, he asserted that they both will cohabit together for two

years, beget a child and then only he will think about her further

education. The next roznama dated 20.07.2018 shows that Vaibhav

informed Women Cell that he had filed petition for divorce in the Court

at Jalgaon. He has filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 206 of 2018 at

Jalgaon Court on 06.06.2018 i.e. within 05 months from the date of

their separation. Divorce petition cannot be filed within one year from

the date of marriage as per Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. Vaibhav

did not wait for completion of one year period. This also shows

intention of Vaibhav that he did not want to continue the marriage with

Jyoti. This evidence makes it clear that Vaibhav deserted Jyoti with an

intention to end the matrimonial relations.

26. Adverting to the third ground of Jyoti that during the

subsistence of their marriage, Vaibhav performed marriage with

Bhagyawant Punde {19} FCA-86-2024

Janhavi and he voluntarily performed sexual intercourse with

Janhavi/respondent No. 2. Though served, Janhavi has not caused

appearance in the matter. In his evidence Vaibhav has admitted the

photographs Exhibit-94, 96a, 97a, 100 and 101, which are of his and

Janhavi's visit to Andaman. Their cruise trip photographs are at

Exhibit-102 and 103. Vaibhav has not denied the fact that he travelled

with Janhavi from his house at Nashik to Port Blair. He has also

admitted the boarding passes/tickets at Exhibit-93 and 97 and that

they travelled through Agrawal travels and stayed together in one

room at Port Blair. He has also admitted his acquaintance with Janhavi,

but denied the fact of second marriage and their physical relations.

Vaibhav has admitted that Janhavi has given birth to a son namely

Advit on 04.011.2022 at Ankur Hospital, Chalisgaon and he is the

biological father of child. He has put forth a fallacious theory that by

following artificial insemination procedure child is born, which is liable

to be rejected at the threshold taking into consideration the

voluminous evidence on record to show his marriage with Janhavi and

their photographs of Andaman trip etc.

27. Jyoti has produced photographs of Vaibhav and Janhavi at

Exhibit-56 collectively, which clearly indicate the intimate relations

between Vaibhav and Janhavi. Vaibhav has also admitted videos at

Bhagyawant Punde {20} FCA-86-2024

Exhibit-113 and 118. However, he has denied the remaining videos

WA001, WA004, WA005, Video No. 230213, 230836. These videos are

of Saptapadi, Haldi and other functions of marriage with Janhavi.

Vaibhav claimed that these videos are edited. It is pertinent to note

that all these videos and photographs are derived from the cell phone

of Vaibhav, which he has admitted to be in possession of Jyoti. He has

also gone to the extent of filing report in police station alleging that

Jyoti has stolen his cell phone.

The above referred evidence and admission on the part of

Vaibhav that he is biological father of Advait proves the fact that Advait

is born to Janhavi out of her physical relations with Vaibhav. Jyoti has

therefore proved that Vaibhav is illegally staying with Janhavi. Since

the marriage between Vaibhav and Janhavi was subsisting, the relation

of Vaibhav with Janhavi can be termed to be adulterous. Hence,

Janhavi has proved that Vaibhav has voluntarily engaged in sexual

relations with Janhavi, which amounted to adultery.

28. Janhavi has therefore proved by sufficient evidence that

she was treated with cruelty, Vaibhav has deserted her with an

intention to end the matrimonial tie and he has kept adulterous

relations with Janhavi during the subsistence of their marriage.

Considering the evidence on record, the Family Court has rightly

Bhagyawant Punde {21} FCA-86-2024

granted the divorce decree by assigning cogent reasons and we find no

reason to interfere in the same. For these reasons, Point No. (i) is

answered in affirmative.

29. Coming to the challenge raised by Vaibhav to the quantum

of permanent alimony of Rs. 30 Lakhs awarded by the Family Court, it

is necessary to note here that the parties have cohabited together

hardly for 6 to 7 months period. Admittedly, Jyoti is well educated and

holds B.E (Civil) degree. It appears that her father is well off.

As per Exhibit-142, payment slips of Vaibhav for the period

between January-2023 to January-2024 his gross salary is @ Rs.

1,06,477/-, after deduction of Rs. 22,620/- his net pay is Rs. 63,857/-.

There is evidence on record to show that he owns a flat at Nashik

jointly with his mother. There is evidence to show that his father owns

two plots at Jamner admeasuring 3400 sq.ft. They own ancestral

house at Ozar, Tq. Jamner. Though, 8A extract and 7/12 extract of the

agricultural land standing in the name of Vaibhav's father is placed on

record, there is no evidence to indicate that his father is getting some

income from the agricultural land. But it has to be presumed that he

must be getting some income from the agricultural land. There is no

evidence to show that Vaibhav's family is running a shop by name

Ratna Furniture. In the light of evidence on record it appears that

Bhagyawant Punde {22} FCA-86-2024

Vaibhav has some responsibility of parents. In view of admission of

Vaibhav that he is biological father of Advit, it can be held that he has

responsibility of Advit.

30. During the course of arguments, it was argued that Jyoti

has performed the second marriage after the divorce decree. This fact

is not specifically denied by the learned advocate representing Jyoti. It

therefore appears that both Vaibhav and Jyoti have moved on in their

life by leaving the past behind.

31. The Apex Court has laid down the criterion for arriving at a

quantum of permanent alimony. In Pravin Kumar Jain Vs. Anju Jain1 it

is observed thus;

"32. This Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra), provided a comprehensive criterion and a list of factors to be looked into while deciding the question of permanent alimony. This judgment lays down an elaborate and comprehensive framework necessary for deciding the amount of maintenance in all matrimonial proceedings, with specific emphasis on permanent alimony. The same has been reiterated by this Court in Kiran Jyoti Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (Supra). The primary objective of granting permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not left without any support and means after the dissolution of the marriage. It aims at protecting the interests of the dependent spouse and does not provide for penalizing the other spouse in the process. The Court in these two judgments laid down the following factors to be looked into:

1 2025(2) SCC 227

Bhagyawant Punde {23} FCA-86-2024

i. Status of the parties, social and financial.

ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children.

iii. Parties' individual qualifications and employment statuses.

                      iv.     Independent income or assets owned by the
                      applicant.
                      v.      Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the
                      matrimonial home.
                      vi.     Any employment sacrifices made for the family
                      responsibilities.
                      vii.    Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.

viii. Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities.

These are only guidelines and not a straitjacket rubric. These among such other similar factors become relevant."

32. In Kiran Jyot Maini Vs. Anish Pramod Patel 2, the Apex Court

had held:

"26. Furthermore, the financial capacity of the husband is a critical factor in determining permanent alimony. The Court shall examine the husband's actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and any dependents he is legally obligated to support. His liabilities and financial commitments are also to be considered to ensure a balanced and fair maintenance award. The court must consider the husband's standard of living and the impact of inflation and high living costs. Even if the husband claims to have no source of income, his ability to earn, given his education and qualifications, is to be

2 2024 SCC Online SC 1724

Bhagyawant Punde {24} FCA-86-2024

taken into account. The courts shall ensure that the relief granted is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved party was accustomed. The court's approach should be to balance all relevant factors to avoid maintenance amounts that are either excessively high or unduly low, ensuring that the dependent spouse can live with reasonable comfort post-separation."

33. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of present case

and taking into consideration the standard of living of the parties,

qualification of Jyoti, the fact that Vaibhav and Jyoti cohabited

intermittently only for a period of 6-7 months, and partial

responsibility of parents of Vaibhav, so also, the fact that he has

responsibility of Advit, we are of the considered opinion that

permanent alimony of Rs. 15,00,000/- would be a reasonable amount.

It would not be excessively high as has been awarded by the Family

Court or unduly low ensuring that Jyoti can live with reasonable

comfort post separation.

34. The Family Court has misdirected itself in awarding high

amount of permanent alimony @ Rs. 30,00,000/- on the erroneous

ground that since the amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month was awarded

to Jyoti as interim maintenance, yearly maintenance would come to

Rs. 1,20,000/- and since Jyoti is of 30 years of age and considering the

life expectancy of a normal human being is of 65 years. Then the

Family Court calculated yearly maintenance @ Rs. 1,20,000/- for next Bhagyawant Punde {25} FCA-86-2024

30 years holding it to be fair and reasonable for Jyoti to lead life with

dignity till her age of 65 years. The said finding of the Family Court is

unreasonable and unsustainable in the facts of the present case. Point

No. (ii) is accordingly answered in negative.

35. Adverting to the claim of Jyoti of return of stridhan articles,

it is clear from the record that she has failed to prove that said articles

were gifted to her in the marriage and those are still in possession of

Vaibhav. Though Jyoti has produced bills of jeweler at Exhibit-48 and

some photographs at Exhibit-50, from the photographs it can be seen

that few silver articles were gifted to Vaibhav in marriage and the gold

ring was also gifted to him. Vaibhav has denied that he is in possession

of silver articles and gold ornaments. There is no evidence on record to

show that the stridhan articles are still in the custody of Vaibhav. Jyoti

has admitted that Almira, TV and Cooler are at the house of her

grandparents. Therefore, in this view of the matter, we find no error in

the finding recorded by the family Court that "In such circumstances,

possibility cannot be ruled out that the other articles are also in

possession of the petitioner. In the absence of any evidence that the

stridhan articles are in possession of the respondent, the relief of

return of stridhan articles to the petitioner cannot be granted" . We,

therefore, find no merit in the appeal filed by Jyoti.



Bhagyawant Punde
                                        {26}                       FCA-86-2024

36. Vaibhav was granted permission to argue the matters as a

party-in-person. He has mostly argued on irrelevant aspects and has

relied on irrelevant judgments, which were rendered in different facts.

37. In Smt. Guntamukkala Nagar Venkata Kanaka Durga Vs.

Guntamukkala Eswar Sudhakar and another3, it is held that allegations

made by appellant does not constitute the act of cruelty. This decision

as well as decisions in Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others 4 and

Mahadeo Shridhar Gaikwad Vs. Sau. Vandana Mahadeo Gaikwad 5, are

rendered in different facts and are of no assistance to the case of

Vaibhav.

38. For the aforestated reasons, we pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) Judgment of the Family Court is modified to the extent of award of permanent alimony by directing Vaibhav to pay an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to Jyoti. The amount shall be paid within three months from the date of uploading of this judgment. The amount paid by Vaibhav till date towards permanent alimony shall be deducted from the said amount.