Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Uma @ Kaushalya vs Bhagwati Prasad Soni on 22 August, 2017
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2510 / 2009
Smt Uma @ Kaushalya wife of Shri Bhagwati Prasad Soni,
daughter of Bihari Lal, aged about 31 years, by caste Soni,
resident of 9/713, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, presently residing at
Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
Bhagwati Prasad son of Shri Banwari Lal Soni, aged about 35
years, by caste Soni, resident of house No.48, Gupta Garden,
Govind Nagar West, Jaipur.
----Respondent
Connected With D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5749 / 2011 Smt Uma @ Kaushalya w/o Bhagwati Prasad Soni, D/o Bihari Lal, aged about 33 years, B/c Soni, R/o 9/713, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, presently residing at Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.
----Appellant Versus Bhagwati Prasad S/o Shri Banwari Lal Soni, aged about 35 years, by caste Soni, R/o House No.48, Gupta Garden, Govind Nagar- West, Jaipur.
----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Smt.Manju Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Keshav Agarwal, Adv. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Judgment Judgment reserved on : 9th August, 2017.
Date of Judgment : 22nd August, 2017.
By the Court (Per Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ajay Rastogi):
These appeals are filed against judgment and decree dt.17.03.2009 passed by the ld.Family Court No.2, Jaipur granting (2 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of the respondent-
husband and dismissing the petition filed by the appellant-wife for restitution of conjugal rights.
The brief facts to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeals need mention are that the marriage between appellant and respondent was solemnized on 29.05.1996 at Jaipur as per Hindu rites and customs. The respondent-husband, as alleged, is working as gold smith and the appellant is a house wife. Out of this wedlock, one girl child was born, named Tina on 12.06.1997, who is residing with the appellant-wife.
Prior to the present Divorce Petition No.374/2003 seeking decree of divorce u/Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came to be filed by the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion on 18.09.2003, it is indisputed and admitted by the appellant herself that she left her matrimonial home along with their daughter and started living separately since 12.08.2001 with her parents who are residing at 9/713, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur and on the same day when she left the matrimonial home, lodged an FIR for offence u/Sec.498-A, 406 & 323 IPC at Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur implicating the respondent-husband and her father-in-law (sasur) & brother-in-law (jeth) wherein all three were arrested and later on granted post arrest bail and during the course of trial, all the prosecution witnesses including the present appellant PW-1 Smt.Kaushlya, PW-2 Smt.Sumitra, PW-3 Biharilal & PW-4 Smt.Triveni were declared hostile and order of acquittal was passed by the ld.Trial Judge on 16.09.2002 (Exhibit-5) and on (3 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] the very next day, a joint application u/Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was instituted/presented before the ld.Family Court seeking decree of divorce by consent on 17.09.2002 (Exhibit-2) and it was stated in para-3 of the application that the appellant-wife left her matrimonial home along with their daughter on 12.08.2001 and because of their ideological differences and litigation it has become difficult for them to maintain their matrimonial relation and with consent they want decree of divorce and in para-5 of the application it was averred that the appellant-
wife has accepted one time alimony of Rs.25,000/- from the respondent-husband. The said joint application was duly supported by their affidavits and after the completion of cooling period, the appellant-wife was afforded an opportunity to appear before the ld.Family Court but since she failed to appear, their joint application seeking decree of divorce through mutual consent u/Sec.13B of the Act, 1955 was rejected on 07.08.2003 (Exhibit-
1). The extract of paras-3 & 5 of the application seeking decree of divorce by consent u/Sec.13-B of the Act, 1955, being relevant are reproduced ad infra:-
"3- ;g fd fookg ds i'pkr dqN le; rd rks izkFkhZx.k ifr ifRu ds :i esa ,d lkFk jgs ,oa izkFkhZ;ka Øe 1 }kjk ,d yMdh Vhuk dks tUe fn;k x;k] ijUrq izkFkhZx.k esa vkil esa oSpkfjd erHksn mRiUu gks x;k ,oe~ ftlds dkj.k ?kj esa ekufld Dys'k ,oa v'kkafr jgus yxh ,oe~ izkFkhZx.k dk vkil esa ,d lkFk jguk nq'okj gks x;k] ftl dkj.k fnukad% 12&8&2001 dks izkFkhZ;k¡ Øe 1 izkFkhZ la[;k 2 dks NksMdj viuh iq=h Vhuk dks ysdj vius ihgj pyh x;h ,oe~ rHkh ls izkFkhZ;ka la[;k 1 mijksDr irs ij fuokl dj jgh gSA izkFkhZx.k ds vkil esa oSpkfjd erHksn jgus ds dkj.k vkil esa eqdnesckth gqbZ] ijUrq izkFkhZx.k us vius Hkfo"; dks ns[krs gq, vkil esa cMs cqtqxksZ ds le>kus cq>kus ij jkthukek dj fy;k gS ,oe~ vc izkFkhZx.k LosPNk ls (4 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] fookg foPNsn dh fMØh izkIr djuk pkgrs gS ,oe~ LorU= :i ls viuk thou O;rhr djuk pkgrs gSA 4 XX XX XX XX 5 ;g fd izkFkhZ;ka la[;k 1 }kjk izkFkhZ la[;k 2 ls viuk o viuh iq=h Vhuk dk thou HkrkfuokZg ,d eq'r izkIr fd;k tk pqdk gS ,oe~ leLr L=h /ku izkIr fd;k tk pqdk gS izkFkhZ la[;k 2 ds ikl vc izkFkhZ;ka la[;k 1 dk dksbZ lkeku ;k L=h/ku ugha jgk gSA izkFkhZ;ka la[;k 1 ds lkFk mudh iq=h Vhuk jgsxh ,oe~ vkxs Hkfo"; esa og Hkh mldh ns[kHkky]lkt laHkky djsxhA"
Thereafter the present divorce petition came to be filed by the respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion u/Sec.13 of the Act, 1955 on 18.09.2003 and it was pleaded by the respondent-husband in his application that after their marriage was solemnized on 29.05.1996 for the first two years, they had a very cordial relations & one girl child was born out of this wedlock named Tina on 12.06.1997 but later on the appellant-wife took a U-Turn in her behaviour and so also in her attitude not only towards the respondent-husband but towards his other family members also and very frequently she started going to her parent's house without intimation and almost more than 15 days in a month she started living in her parent's house and that has not only disturbed their family relations but matrimonial relations as well. Her behaviour towards his parents was also very rude and she used to utter slangs and abusive language not only to the respondent-husband but to his family members as well.
It was further averred that on 12.08.2001 the appellant-wife made a false criminal compliant in Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur implicating the respondent-husband, his father & elder brother for offence u/Sec.498-A, 406 & 323 IPC and all three of them were (5 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] taken into judicial custody and later on granted post arrest bail and during trial all the prosecution witnesses did not support the criminal complaint made by the appellant-wife and order of acquittal came to be passed by the ld.Trial Judge vide order dt.16.09.2002 (Exhibit-5). Registration of a false criminal complaint against the respondent-husband and his family members in which they were taken into judicial custody has not only humiliated them but has tarnished their image in the family and society and it has certainly disturbed their peace of mind and such act of the appellant-wife was unpardonable and only thereafter they decided that it may not be possible to continue with the matrimonial relation and the appellant-wife agreed to dissolve their marriage by consent and accordingly the application u/Sec.13B of the Act, 1955 was filed on 17.09.2002 (Exhibit-2).
Written statement to the divorce application was filed by the appellant-wife on 19.01.2004 and denied all the allegations made by the respondent-husband. The ld.Family Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed following issues for determination, which read ad infra:-
(Matrimonial Case No.374/2003 - filed u/S.13 of Act, 1955) "1- D;k vizkfFkZuh us fookg ds i'pkr ls izkFkhZ ds lkFk Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k gS+ \ 2- D;k vizkfFkZuh us vO;ofgr :i ls nks o"kZ ls vf/kd vof/k ls izkFkhZ dk vfHkR;tu dj j[kk gS \ 3- D;k izkFkhZ fookg foPNsn dh fMØh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 4- vuqrks"k \"
(Matrimonial Case No.33/2004 - filed u/S.9 of Act, 1955) (6 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] "1- D;k vizkFkhZ us fcuk fdlh ;qfDr ;qDr dkj.k ds Loa; dks izkfFkZuh ds lkgp;Z ls izR;g`r dj fy;k gS \ 2- D;k izkfFkZuh nkEiR; vf/kdkjksa dh izR;kLFkkiuk ds fy, fMØh izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS \ 3- vuqrks"k \"
In support of his application seeking decree of divorce u/Sec.13 of the Act, 1955, the respondent-husband recorded his statement and one Manoj Kumar Sharma, who is running his shop nearby the workplace of the respondent as PW-1 & PW-2 respectively to establish that it is the appellant-wife who withdrew herself from the matrimonial relations without any cause or justification w.e.f. 12.08.2001 and never returned back to her matrimonial home and has completely deserted the respondent- husband and failed to perform her matrimonial obligation.
In her only statement recorded in support of her defence, as DW-1 it was admitted in her cross examination that a false criminal complaint was lodged by her at Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur implicating the respondent-husband and his father & elder brother for offence u/Sec.498-A, 406 & 323 IPC and she was never beaten by her in-laws and there was no demand of dowry by them and this was the cause for acquittal of the respondent- husband by the criminal court. In her cross examination she further admitted that application for divorce by consent u/Sec.13- B of the Act, 1955 was signed by her and filed in her presence before the ld.Family Court but now she is not interested to agree for divorce, although she accepted a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time when application u/Sec.13-B of the Act, 1955 was filed but it (7 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] was not towards permanent alimony but was for maintenance. It was also her admission in the cross examination that from 12.08.2001 she left her matrimonial home with their daughter and started residing with her parents since then and looking to the litigation, pending between them, it has become impossible for her to stay and also the fact that respondent-husband took a rental accommodation nearby her parents' residence but still relations could not be improved and finally it was stated by her in cross examination that she is not interested to give divorce and want to stay with the respondent-husband. The extract of cross examination of the appellant, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced ad infra:-
"...............;g ckr lgh gS fd eSusa o esjs ifjokj okyksa us vnkyr esa ekjihV ugha djus ngst dh ekax ugh djus vkfn ds ckcr c;ku fn;s FksA ftl ij vnkyr us izkFkhZ jksfgrk'k dks cjh dj fn;kA ............... eSusa lgefr ls rykd dh ;kfpdk vnkyr esa vius ifr izkFkhZ ds ncko esa vkdj yxkbZ FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSusa vius ifr o mlds ifjokj okyksa ds fo:} >wBh fjiksVZ ntZ djkdj Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eSusa 25 gtkj :0 13 ch dh ;kfpdk is'k djrs le; fy;s Fks ijUrq og Hkj.k iks"k.k ds fy;s Fks vkthou Hkj.k iks"k.k ds ugh fy;s FksA ............... ;g lgh gS fd ge 12&8&2001 ds ckn dHkh ifr iRuh ds :i esa lkFk ugh jgs A ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSusa izkFkhZ dks NksM+ j[kk gks cfYd izkFkhZ us esjs dks NksM+ j[kk gSA ;g lgh gS fd gekjs chp eqdnesckth bruh c< xbZ gS fd gekjk lkFk jguk lEHkao ugha gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd iqfyl us esjs ifr tsB] llqj dks fxj¶rkj fd;k Fkk fQj ckn esa tekur gks xbZ FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd ge esjh ek¡ ds edku ds ikl gh xyh esa vyx ls edku ysdj jgs Fks fQj esjk ifr [kkus dekus lwjr pyk x;k Fkk ogk¡ ls 2&3 ekg esa ,d ckj vkrk FkkA"
The ld.Family Court on the basis of oral & documentary evidence which has come on record finally held that the respondent-husband has satisfactorily proved that the appellant-
(8 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] wife was guilty of having deserted him for a continuous period of more than two years preceding the filing of the petition for divorce and he suffered mental cruelty and has become entitled for a decree of divorce and according the ld.Family Court decided both the applications by a common judgment accepting the application filed for grant of decree of divorce by the respondent-husband u/Sec.13 of the Act, 1955 and dismissed the application of the appellant-wife filed for restitution of conjugal rights u/Sec.9 of the Act, 1955 vide judgment & decree impugned dt.17.03.2009. Two separate misc. appeals have been filed by the appellant i.e. D.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2510/2009 against the judgment & decree of divorce on 21.04.2009 and after more than two years another appeal was filed by her against dismissal of her application u/Sec.9 of the Act, 1955 on 23.05.2011 registered as D.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.5749/2011.
Assailing the legal sustainability of judgment of the ld.Family Court, counsel appearing for the appellant-wife submitted that the allegations which are levelled by the respondent-husband even if taken on their face value are nothing beyond the difference between the spouse but that will not make out a case of mental or physical cruelty on the respondent-husband to be assigned to the appellant-wife and as regards the ground of desertion is concerned, no material has come on record which could satisfy making out a case of desertion on the part of the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband in fact has failed to make out a case of seeking decree of divorce on the basis of mental cruelty or (9 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] desertion and from day-1 of filing of the petition, the appellant- wife has stated through-out, without any reservation, which has also come in her pleadings, that she is still interested in going back to her matrimonial home but no attention has been paid by the ld.Family Court to this proven fact that she wants to restore back her matrimonial relations.
To counter, counsel for the respondent-husband has urged that the petition, filed by him, if read in entirety, would go to show that the respondent-husband has specifically pleaded about the mental hurt and trauma that he had suffered because of the treatment meted out to him by his wife and her family members by implicating them in a false criminal case registered for the offence u/Sec.498A, 406 & 323 IPC in which they were taken into judicial custody and later on granted post arrest bail and during trial this allegation was found to be false and they were acquitted of the offences by the competent court of jurisdiction and that apart at one time application was file u/Sec.13-B of the Act, 1955 duly signed by both the parties and presented before the ld.Family Court and it was her own admission that she withdrew herself from their matrimonial relationship from 12.08.2001 and because of their ideological differences it is not possible for her to restore their matrimonial relations and she is interested in the decree of divorce and has also accepted permanent alimony but as she failed to appear before the ld.Family Court at the later stage, that application was rejected and since nothing in rebuttal has come on record, at least the factum of desertion stands proved/established (10 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] from the evidence which came on record and her subsequent conduct for the purpose of demonstrating the cruel treatment of the appellant-wife also stands established from the material which is on record and the decree of divorce, granted by the ld.Family Court, needs no interference.
We have heard counsel for the parties and to appreciate the rival submissions we have carefully perused the evidence adduced by the parties and the judgment of the ld.Family Court.
The plea that was raised for grant of divorce is based on the ground of cruelty envisages u/Sec.13(1)(ia) and desertion envisages u/Sec.13(1)(ib) of the Act, 1955. The relevant provision of Sect.13 of the Act, 1955 reads ad infra:-
"13. Divorce - (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party -
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (ib) has deserted the petition for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or ......
Explanation:- In this sub-section the expression 'desertion' means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly." It is true that 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Act but is a relative term. It varies from person to person and there cannot be laid down any straight jacket formula and each case has to be examined on its own facts. The allegation and conduct of one (11 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] particular case may not amount to cruelty in all the cases. It depends upon various factors which includes the status of the spouses and the atmosphere in which they live. Cruelty implies and means harsh conduct and of such intensity and persistence, which would make it impossible for the spouse to operate the marriage. Although the cruelty may not defined in the Act, but it is to be determined on the basis of proved facts and circumstances of the case.
It is indeed true that marriage is a sacred relationship between husband and the wife. In a traditional society like ours, when a boy marries a girl, he not only brings a wife to his home but also beings a daughter-in-law for the family. Thus, the behavior of a woman has to be seen both as a wife and as a daughter-in-law.
For grant of decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, it has to be established that the other party to the marriage has deserted the party seeking divorce for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The concept 'desertion' has been examined by the Apex Court in Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar Vs. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi reported in (2002) 1 SCC 308 wherein it was held ad infra:-
"7. 'Desertion' in the context of matrimonial law represents a legal conception. It is difficult to give a comprehensive definition of the term. The essential ingredients of this offence in order that it may furnish a ground for relief are :
1. The factum of separation;
(12 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009]
2. The intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end animus deserndi;
3. The element of permanence which is a prime condition requires that both these essential ingredients should continue during the entire statutory period; The clause lays down the rule that desertion to amount to a matrimonial offence must be for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. This clause has to be read with the Explanation. The Explanation has widened the definition of desertion to include willful neglect of the petitioning spouse by the respondent. It states that to amount to a matrimonial offence desertion must be without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of the petitioner. From the Explanation it is abundantly clear that the legislature intended to give to the expression a wide import which includes willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage. Therefore, for the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly, two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. The petitioner for divorce bears the burden of proving those elements in the two spouses respectively and their continuance throughout the statutory period." It has further been examined by the Apex Court in Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 wherein it was held at para 8 & 10 ad infra:-
"8. "Desertion", for the purpose of seeking divorce under the Act, means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause. In other words it is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things. Desertion, therefore, means withdrawing from the matrimonial obligations, i.e., not permitting or allowing and facilitating the cohabitation between the parties. The proof of desertion has to be considered by taking into consideration the concept of marriage which in law legalises the sexual relationship between man and woman in the society for the perpetuation of race, permitting lawful indulgence in passion to prevent licentiousness and for procreation of children.
(13 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] Desertion is not a single act complete in itself, it is a continuous course of conduct to be determined under the facts and circumstances of each case. After referring to host of authorities and the views of various authors, this Court in Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati held that if a spouse abandons the other in a state of temporary passions, for example, anger or disgust without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion.
9. XX XX XX
10. To prove desertion in matrimonial matter it is not always necessary that one of the spouse should have left the company of the other as desertion could be proved while living under the same roof. Desertion cannot be equated with separate living by the parties to the marriage. Desertion may also be constructive which can be inferred from the attending circumstances. It has always to be kept in mind that the question of desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case."
The respondent-husband in his application has specifically stated that the appellant-wife has instituted a false criminal case against him and his family members for offence u/ec.498A, 406 & 323 IPC in which they were arrested & taken into judicial custody and later released on bail and finally acquitted of the offences by the competent court of jurisdiction after recording the finding that it was a false complaint made by the appellant-wife implicating not only the respondent-husband but his family members as well vide judgment dt.16.09.2002 (Exhibit-5) and that apart the appellant- wife has left her matrimonial home with their daughter on 12.08.2001 and indisputably has not returned back to her matrimonial home even once thereafter and there remained no physical relations between them since then and no cohabitation has taken place.
For desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there viz., (1) the factum of (14 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] separation; and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). At the same time, two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned viz., (1) the absence of consent; and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid and for holding desertion as proved, the interference has to be drawn from certain facts which may not in another case be capable of leading to the same inference. The facts have to be viewed as to the purpose which is revealed by conduct and expression of intention, both anterior & subsequent to the actual act of separation.
Apart from mental cruelty which the respondent-husband had faced because of the false criminal case being instituted against him & family members for offence u/Sec.498A, 406 & 323 IPC in which during the course of trial, the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and order of acquittal came to be passed acquitting the respondent-husband and his family members of the criminal charges levelled against them vide judgment dt.16.09.2002 (Exhibit-5) and sufficient material is available to record to establish that the appellant-wife has deserted the respondent-husband for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the divorce petition as she left the matrimonial home on 12.08.2001 and never tried to return back to her matrimonial home and even in her own cross examination as DW-1, it is her admission that she made a false complaint of being beaten by the (15 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] family members of her husband or there was no demand of dowry and as a consequence whereof order of acquittal came to be passed by the competent court of jurisdiction and further admitted that a joint application u/Sec.13-B of the Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce by consent was filed but put a caveat of under pressure and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was accepted by her not towards permanent alimony but for maintenance and as they are residing separately since 12.08.2001 and looking to the nature of litigation and their ideological differences between them, it became impossible for her to stay at her matrimonial home and tried to apologize for the rest to the respondent-husband along with family members.
Thus, the facts on record clearly establish the factum of separation and from cross examination of the appellant-wife as DW-1 her intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi) also stands established. At the same time, she is unable to justify the absence of consent and no justification was offered giving reasonable cause to her leaving the matrimonial home and this what has been considered by the ld.Family Court in finally arriving to the conclusion & that apart from the kind of mental cruelty with which the respondent-husband has suffered, he is able to make out a case that the appellant-wife has deserted him without any reasonable cause or justification.
After we have heard counsel for the parties & gone through the material on record, we are satisfied that the evidence of respondent-husband appears to be reliable whereas the testimony (16 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] of the appellant-wife is against her averments on record which certainly not only belies her testimony but also renders her unworthy of trust. The ld.Family Court has given cogent and valid reasons for relying upon the evidence of the respondent-husband while deciding the issues in favour of the respondent-husband and we have no hesitation to hold that act of the appellant-wife did constitute an act of cruelty to the respondent-husband and she has also deserted her matrimonial home without any reasonable cause or justification and the finding of fact recorded by the ld.Family Court, in our considered view, is liable to be sustained and does not call for interference.
Before parting with the judgment, we would like to record that during pendency of the appeals, on application filed by the appellant-wife u/Sec.24 of the Act, 1955, a detailed order was passed by us on 13.10.2014 granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month i.e. Rs.5,000/- to the appellant-wife and Rs.5,000/- for the daughter. Let that may be treated as monthly alimony and be allowed to continue until further orders being passed by the ld.Family Court on the proceedings if initiated by the appellant- wife for permanent alimony u/Sec.25 of the Act, 1955.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the finding recorded by the ld.Family Court being based on proper & legal appreciation of the evidence on record, deserves to be upheld and the decree of divorce granted by the ld.Family Court impugned dt.17.03.2009 deserves to be sustained and does not call for any interference by this Court in the instant proceedings.
(17 of 17) [ CMA-2510/2009] Consequently, the instant misc. appeals being devoid of merit and substance are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR)J. (AJAY RASTOGI)J. Solanki DS, PS