Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Bombay Act of suspecting character of wife, physically assault and harassment on coming late from work place due to nature of job amounted to cruelty MANU/MH/1933/2016 - (14 Sep 2016) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Smt. Vibha w/o Arun Goswami, V. Arun s/o Narayan Goswami</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">In instant appeal, Appellant is aggrieved by Family Court’s conclusion that wife could not prove that husband treated her with cruelty and refused to grant a decree of divorce in favour of wife. Conduct of respondent was not of such a nature and gravity so as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of wife that it will be harmful or injurious to her to live with the husband. Family Court was of view that evidence on record was not sufficient to substantiate the allegations of cruelty. It was also observed that corroborative evidence was lacking.

It is apparent that learned Judge has not appreciated evidence of wife in proper perspective keeping in view that certain important facts and serious allegations levelled by her were not at all controverted by the husband leading to the ultimate result that those facts which found place in the pleadings and deposed in evidence were duly proved. Even in evidence of Respondent, there is no specific denial to allegations levelled by wife. Thus, on basis of evidence on record, it is clear that conduct of husband in suspecting character of wife, physically assaulting and harassing her as she was coming home late from work place due to the nature of her job are the facts duly established amounting to cruelty and wife is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Petition for divorce under Section 13¬B of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by husband and wife before Court at Amravati but according to husband as access to child was denied, he refused for divorce by mutual consent. This fact indicates that, Respondent accepted that marriage cannot be saved and no purpose will be served in continuing the marriage. It was not case of husband that his signature on petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act was obtained by force, fraud or coercion. He voluntarily agreed to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Findings recorded by Family Court are not in consonance with evidence adduced by the parties and Judge has also lost sight of most important facts elicited in cross examination of husband. Marriage between appellant/wife and respondent/husband stands dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i¬a) of Hindu Marriage Act.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Marriage, Dissolution, Grant</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>