Bombay High Court
Gajanan S/O Mukaji Bhoyar vs Smt. Leelabai W/O Gajanan Bhoyar on 17 January, 2017
Author: Vasanti A Naik
Bench: Vasanti A Naik
FCA 152/14 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No. 152/2014
Gajanan S/o Mukaji Bhoyar,
Aged about 52 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Korapna, District-Chandrapur (Maharashtra State). APPELLANT
.....VERSUS.....
Smt.Leelabai w/o Gajanan Bhoyar,
Aged 48 years, Occ. Household,
R/o 156, Omkar Nagar, Nagpur,
Tahsil & District-Nagpur (Maharashtra State) RESPONDENT
Shri A.V. Khare, counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
V.M.
DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 17 TH JANUARY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this Family Court Appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur dated 03.05.2011, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the appellant for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
The appellant-husband (hereinafter referred to as the "husband" for the sake of convenience) and the respondent-wife (hereinafter referred to as the "wife"), were married at village Khumari in Tahsil Saoner on 03.05.1978 as per the Hindu rites and custom. The ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:33 ::: FCA 152/14 2 Judgment parties were blessed with two sons namely; Mahendra and Ravindra. At the relevant time, the husband was working as a Sub-Treasury Officer. It is stated by the husband in the petition filed by him for a decree of divorce that from the beginning, the wife was always demanding money from the husband and was money minded. It is pleaded that the husband had purchased a plot in Omkar Nagar, had constructed a house thereon and was residing with the wife and his two sons in the said house. It is pleaded that the husband purchased two plots at Zingabai Takli in the name of the wife but, the wife always tried to ensure that more and more money was extracted from the husband. It is pleaded that the wife used to torture the husband mentally and hence he used to be depressed. It is pleaded that it was difficult for the husband to lead a normal life as the wife always quarreled with the husband for some reason or the other. It is pleaded that after Mahendra, the elder son of the parties, secured a diploma in Mechanical Engineering and started earning, the behaviour of the wife against the husband drastically changed and it became from bad to worse. It is pleaded that the husband was operated for Hernia in 2001 and the wife came to the hospital at 11.00 a.m. after the operation was over at about 8.00 a.m. It is pleaded that the wife was not bothered about the husband and always raised quarrel with him. It is pleaded that on 19.05.2001, the wife started quarreling with the husband in the porch of the house and at that time, the wife's Saree entangled in one of her legs and she fell down. It is pleaded that the wife used to complain about ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:33 ::: FCA 152/14 3 Judgment headache since 2000 and since 27.05.2001 a blood clot was detected in the brain of the wife in the CT Scan. It is pleaded that the wife wrongly blamed the husband that the blood clot occurred due to her fall on 19.05.2001. It is pleaded that the wife left the husband in July-August, 2001 without informing anybody and the husband was required to search at all the main temples, bus stands, railway stations and at the houses of their relatives but, the wife was not to be found. It is pleaded that after a couple of days, the wife returned to the matrimonial home along with one of her relatives, who abused the husband. It is pleaded that when the husband was returning to his house at 8.00 p.m. on 21.09.2001, he heard the people gossiping in a sarcastic manner that the wife was missing from her house for two days. It is pleaded that on 22.09.2001, Mahendra raised a quarrel with the husband and stated that the husband need to be thrashed. It is pleaded that the husband left the house with a view to avoid further quarrel. It is pleaded that the wife informed him that she was leaving for Isapur and that she would not return. It is pleaded that the husband did not find the wife in the house, in the evening. It is pleaded that at 9.00 a.m. on 23.09.2001, the sons of the husband knocked on the door of his room and started assaulting the husband by a crow-bar. It is pleaded that after the husband raised a cry, the neighbours entered the house to help the husband and the husband was admitted to Naik Hospital as he was injured. It is pleaded that though the husband had to stay in the hospital for nearly three days, neither the wife nor his ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:33 ::: FCA 152/14 4 Judgment sons came to meet him. It is pleaded that the husband was required to take a leave from his service for about 40 days for complete healing of his wounds. It is pleaded that the husband was extremely shocked by the acts of his sons, who he had tried to bring up well. It is pleaded that the husband used to sit in one room for hours together after he returned to his house from the hospital. It is pleaded that the husband used to be scared of his sons that they would again beat him at the instigation of the wife. It is pleaded that the husband, therefore, started residing in Deo Nagar in a rented room. It is pleaded that the wife and the sons came to Deo Nagar, asked the husband to return by apologizing and, hence, the husband returned to the house. It is pleaded that when the husband refused permission to Mahendra to ride the husband's motorcycle, both the sons started quarreling with the husband and the wife was watching the proceedings and siding with her sons. It is pleaded that the sons threatened the husband that they would beat him. It is pleaded that in July-2004, when the husband was transferred to Korpana, the wife came to Korpana after every 4-5 days only with a view to extract money from the husband and then leave for Nagpur. It is pleaded that on 08.05.2006, the wife returned to Nagpur with a sum of Rs.5,000/- that was given to her by the husband. It is pleaded that immediately thereafter Mahendra called the husband and abused him in very filthy language. It is pleaded that the husband disconnected the line in view of the abuses by Mahendra. It is pleaded that on 05.06.2006, when the husband had gone ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:33 ::: FCA 152/14 5 Judgment to Vaishnodevi, Mahendra called him up and threatened him in abusive language. It is pleaded that Mahendra came at Korpana on 11.06.2006 with a demand of Rs.50,000/- from the husband, however, since the husband did not part with the said sum and also did not permit Mahendra and the wife to sell the plots that were purchased in the name of wife, Mahendra kicked on the back of the husband, as a result of which, the husband fell down and received injury on his hand. It is pleaded that Mahendra had stolen a sum of Rs.4,200/- from the house and had absconded for a period of 52 days and was found in Lahoree Bar and Restaurant after police reports were filed. It is pleaded that the wife had lodged a false complaint against the husband in Shivpuja Mahila Guidance Centre, Nagpur in July-2006. It is pleaded that the wife treated the husband with cruelty and the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
The wife denied the claim of the husband. The wife denied that she had a quarrelsome nature. The wife denied that on 19.05.2001, her saree got entangled in her leg and she fell down. It is pleaded that the wife fell down due to the push by the husband. The wife denied all the adverse allegations levelled by the husband against her and sought for the dismissal of the petition filed by the husband. The wife filed proceedings under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act against the husband and both the petitions, the one filed by the ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:33 ::: FCA 152/14 6 Judgment husband and the other filed by the wife, were heard and decided together by the family court. The family court dismissed the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce and partly allowed the petition filed by the wife and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife towards maintenance from the date of the order. The husband is not aggrieved by the part of the judgment that directs the husband to pay the maintenance to the wife. The husband is aggrieved by the part of the judgment by which the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce is dismissed.
Shri Khare, the learned counsel for the husband, submitted that the family court failed to appreciate the evidence of the parties in the right perspective while refusing to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the husband. It is stated that the family court has referred to the pleadings and the evidence of the parties in several paragraphs of the judgment and has by a short paragraph, bearing Paragraph No.17, rejected the claim of the husband that the wife had treated him with cruelty. It is stated that there is no discussion of the evidence by the family court and after recording the submissions of the parties till Paragraph 16, in Paragraph 17 the family court has held that the allegations levelled by the husband against the wife are not so serious for breaking the marital ties. It is stated that the allegations levelled by the husband against the wife were duly proved by the husband by his ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:33 ::: FCA 152/14 7 Judgment evidence that remained unchallenged in the cross-examination. It is stated that the family court failed to consider that the wife was instigating the sons to assault the husband and due to the injuries suffered by the husband by the crowbars, by which he was beaten up by his sons, the husband was required to be admitted in the hospital for more than three days and could not attend his office for more than a month. It is submitted that the family court was not justified in holding that there was nothing wrong with the conduct of the wife in not attending the hospital, where the husband was operated for hernia, and in reaching the hospital, more than five hours after the operation was over. It is submitted that the family court has not appreciated the evidence of the parties and has observed in Paragraph 17 of the judgment without discussing the evidence that the allegations levelled by the husband against the wife were not very serious. It is submitted that the wife had levelled serious allegations against the husband that were false and had not tendered any cogent evidence in support of the same. It is stated that though it is pleaded by the wife that when the wife was admitted in the hospital, the husband brought the wife of his cousin, viz. Janrao, and took advantage of the wife's absence, the wife has failed to prove the same. It is submitted that the wife has further failed to prove that the husband had sent goondas, viz.Dilipsingh and others, for assaulting the wife and Mahendra by giving them a contract for killing the wife and Mahendra. It is stated that it is well settled that levelling of serious allegations against ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:33 ::: FCA 152/14 8 Judgment the spouse and failing to prove them amounts to cruelty. The learned counsel relied on the judgment reported in AIR 2013 SC 2176 (K.Srinivas Rao Versus D.A. Deepa) in this regard. It is stated that though the counsel for the husband had referred to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2002 SC 2582 (Praveen Mehta Versus Inderjit Mehta) to substantiate the case of the husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty, the family court had failed to consider the law laid down therein and also did not refer to the said judgment while dismissing the petition filed by the husband.
None had appeared on behalf of the respondent when this appeal was heard on 13.01.2017 and 16.01.2017. None appears for the respondent, today also.
On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on a perusal of the original Record & Proceedings, it appears that the following points arise for determination in this family court appeal. I) Whether the husband proves that the wife had treated him with cruelty?
II) Whether the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty?
III) What order?
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:33 :::
FCA 152/14 9 Judgment
To answer the aforesaid points for determination, it would be necessary to consider the pleadings of the parties and the evidence tendered by them. We have elaborately stated the pleadings of the parties in the earlier part of the judgment and it would, therefore, not be necessary to reiterate the facts pleaded by the parties in the petition and the written statement in this judgment. The husband entered into the witness box in support of his case. The wife examined herself and also examined Mahendra, the son, in support of her case. The husband has reiterated the facts pleaded by him in the petition, in his examination-in- chief. The husband was cross-examined on behalf of the wife. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the husband to disbelieve his version in his examination-in-chief. The husband denied the suggestion that the wife was not quarrelsome and that he did not pay any money to the wife. The husband denied the suggestion that the wife did not treat him with cruelty. The husband stated in his cross-examination that since 1982, he found it extremely difficult to lead a normal life along with the wife. The husband stated in his cross-examination that the parties were not leading a normal marital life. The husband denied the suggestion that the wife came to the hospital at 8.00 a.m. when he was operated for hernia. The husband denied the suggestion that on 08.05.2001, he had beaten the wife and had kicked her on the chest. The husband further denied that because of the beating by him, the ear-rings, the marriage-string and the ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:33 ::: FCA 152/14 10 Judgment glass bangles that the wife was wearing, were broken. It is conspicuous to note that this is not the pleading by the wife either in her petition for maintenance or the written statement filed by her in the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce. The husband denied the suggestion that the wife fell on the Vrindawan because he had kicked her on the chest. The husband denied the suggestion that he again kicked the wife on her head and chest after the discharge of the wife from the hospital. It would be pertinent to note that this is not the case of the wife in the written statement filed by her or in her common evidence. The husband denied the suggestion that the case tried to be made out by the husband that the wife left the matrimonial house without informing anybody and returned after two days is false and baseless. The husband denied almost every suggestion that may have falsified the case of the husband had he admitted the same.
The wife stated in her evidence on affidavit that the husband did not purchase the household things and the other items for the wife and the sons. The wife stated in her evidence on affidavit that she never removed any money from the pocket of her husband. The wife pleaded that when her son Mahendra had taken an amount of Rs.10/- for witnessing the circus, the husband jumped on the thighs of Mahendra and assaulted him with great cruelty. The wife stated that when she intervened, she was also assaulted by the husband. The wife stated in her ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:33 ::: FCA 152/14 11 Judgment evidence that when her son Ravindra had removed a sum of Rs.200/- from the wallet of the husband, the husband threw his wallet in a rage and took the wife by her hair from one room to another, as a result of which she suffered blood clots in her brain. The wife stated that when she was admitted in the hospital from 29.05.2001 to 02.06.2001, the husband had brought the wife of his cousin, Shri Janrao, to their house and the husband and the wife of Shri Janrao took advantage of the wife's absence in the house. The wife stated in her evidence that the husband locked her in the toilet for the whole night and opened the door of the toilet in the morning, as a result of which, she remained in the toilet for the whole night. The wife stated in her evidence that she did not inform about this incident to anybody and also did not ask her sons to take her out of the toilet at night. The wife stated that on 19.05.2001, after she fell on the Tulsi Vrindawan or when she was pushed on the Tulsi Vrindawan, she started having a headache due to the blood clots in her head. The wife stated that the husband had left the company of the wife and sons and had started residing in Deo Nagar just to disrepute the wife and the sons. The wife stated that in 2004, the husband requested for his transfer to Korpana and started residing there by leaving the wife and the sons in the matrimonial home. The wife stated that the husband ill- treated her when she went to Korpana. The wife stated that the husband had sent goondas to beat her and her son after giving them a contract for killing the wife and the son. The wife stated that she had lodged a report ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:34 ::: FCA 152/14 12 Judgment against the husband after she returned from Korpana. The wife was cross-examined on behalf of the husband. The wife admitted that before her operation, there were no blood clots in her brain. The wife denied the suggestion that she got the brain injury due to the fall. The wife admitted in her cross-examination that the husband had expended for her treatment in the hospital and for the CT Scan. The wife admitted that she was not knowing who Dilipsingh is but she had mentioned the name of Dilipsingh as a goonda in the first information report that she lodged in the police station. The wife denied that the assault by Dilipsingh is false. The wife, however, admitted that she had demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the husband at Korpana for the business of Mahendra.
The wife also examined Mahendra, the elder son of the parties. Mahendra stated in his examination-in-chief that when once he had taken a sum of Rs.10/- in the year 1997 for going to a circus, the husband had beaten him mercilessly and had also tried to search for an iron crowbar for beating him. It is stated that when the wife intervened, she was beaten up. Mahendra stated in his evidence that when Ravindra had removed a sum of Rs.200/- from the wallet of the husband as pocket- money, the husband dragged the wife by her hair from one room to another, as a result of which she fell on the Tulshi-Vrindawan and suffered injuries to her brain. Mahendra stated in his evidence that there were blood clots in the brain of the wife in view of the said fall. ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:34 :::
FCA 152/14 13 Judgment Mahendra stated in his evidence that the husband had left the matrimonial house to reside at Deo Nagar, away from the family. Mahendra stated that the husband was transferred to Korpana and when he and his mother had gone to Korpana for meeting him, the husband assaulted him with the help of goondas by giving them a contract for killing him and his mother. Mahendra stated in his evidence that he had lodged a police report in respect of the said incident. Mahendra was cross-examined at length. Mahendra admitted in his cross-examination that the house in which they were residing was constructed by their father, i.e. the husband and that the husband had purchased two plots in the name of the wife at Zingabai Takli. Mahendra admitted in his cross- examination that there was a fracture in his left wrist and he was admitted in Naik Hospital due to the fracture in his leg. Mahendra, however, denied the suggestion that he had fled from the house in the year 1997 with a sum of Rs.4,200/-. Mahendra denied the suggestion that he and his mother had gone to Korpana and quarreled with the husband and had lodged a false report in the police station. Mahendra denied the suggestion that the incident that the husband had beaten him up for removing Rs.10/- for witnessing the circus is not true and the case of the wife and Mahendra in that regard is baseless.
On a reading of the evidence tendered by the parties, it is clear that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. There is ample ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:34 ::: FCA 152/14 14 Judgment evidence in support of the case of the husband that the wife was money minded and used to always quarrel with the husband after demanding money from him. The fact that the wife went to the hospital where the husband was operated for hernia at 11.00 a.m. when the operation was over at 8.00 a.m. is proved by the husband. The family court has also believed the case of the husband that the wife used to always quarrel with the husband, that she was money minded and she did not attend the hospital where the husband was operated for hernia. It is the case of the husband that the wife not only behaved badly with him but, always instigated their sons Mahendra and Ravindra to assault him. It appears from the evidence of the husband that the husband was always scared that his sons would assault him and that was the reason for the husband to leave the matrimonial home and secure a rented house in Deo Nagar with a view to live in peace. The case of the husband that the wife fell when her saree got entangled with her leg in the varandah in the year 2001 needs to be believed in view of the material contradictions in the evidence of the wife and Mahendra in their examination-in-chief and also in their cross-examination. It is the case of the wife that she was beaten up in the year 2001 by the husband as her son Mahendra had removed a sum of Rs.10/- for going to the circus. Mahendra is examined on behalf of the wife. However, Mahendra stated in his examination-in-chief that he had taken a sum of Rs.10/- in the year 1997 for witnessing the circus and at that time, he and his mother were beaten up by the husband. It is ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:34 ::: FCA 152/14 15 Judgment conspicuous to note that in the reply to the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce, the wife has not pleaded the facts in regard to the beating by her husband in the year 2001. There appears to be some pleading in this regard in the petition filed by her for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. It was necessary for the wife to have pleaded the said fact in the written statement filed by her in the petition filed by the husband. Be that as it may, though certain facts are not pleaded by the wife even in her petition for maintenance, the same find place in her examination-in-chief. The wife has stated in her examination-in-chief that she was locked in the toilet by the husband on 10.07.2001 after severely beating her and the door of the toilet was opened by him only in the morning. It is difficult to believe that the wife did not seek the help of her sons who were always on the side of the wife to open the door of the toilet, where she was allegedly locked up for the whole night on 10.07.2001. We find that the wife has levelled serious allegations against the husband that are not proved by her by leading cogent evidence. The wife has stated in her evidence that she was pushed on the Tulshi Vrindawan when her son Mahendra had taken a sum of Rs.10/- for going to the circus. Such is however not the pleading of the wife. The case of the wife in this regard is liable to be disbelieved as Mahendra has stated in his evidence that his mother was beaten up in the year 1997 as he had removed a sum of Rs.10/- in the said year for witnessing the circus. It is difficult to believe ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:34 ::: FCA 152/14 16 Judgment the case of the wife that she was pushed on the Tulshi Vrindawan after the said incident in 2001 when it is the clear case of Mahendra that the said incident occurred in the year 1997. It is also difficult to believe the case of the wife that when she was in the hospital for a few days in view of the blood clots in her brain, the husband took advantage of her absence by bringing Baby, the wife of his cousin Janrao in the house. The said fact is not proved by the wife at all. The act on the part of the wife of levelling serious allegations in regard to the moral character of the husband and failing to prove the same, clearly tantamounts to cruelty. It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment reported in 2015(6) Mh.L.J. 536 (Lilesh Vinod Agrawal Versus Vinod Ramrichpal Agrawal), in this regard. We are also not inclined to believe the case of the wife that when the wife and Mahendra had gone to Korpana, goonda Dilipsingh and his aides had tried to assault her and had assaulted Mahendra in view of the contract given by the husband for their killing. If the said case was true, the police authorities should have surely taken some cognizance in the matter. However, there is no material on record to point out that the husband had indeed hired contract killers for killing the wife and Mahendra. The allegations made by the wife in this regard are false and baseless. Moreover, though the wife admits in her cross-examination that she does not know who Dilipsingh is, she further admits that in the first information report lodged by her in the police station in respect of the incident of assault at Korpana, she had mentioned that goonda Dilipsingh ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:34 ::: FCA 152/14 17 Judgment and his aides were hired by the husband for assaulting the wife and Mahendra. On the other hand, we find material on record to show that a false complaint appears to have been lodged by the wife and Mahendra against the husband in regard to the assault by goonda Dilipsingh and his aides on Mahendra. We find from the evidence in the cross-examination of the wife that the wife had demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the husband at Korpana and there was a fight between the parties as he refused to part with the said sum. Though the wife had admitted about the demand of Rs.50,000/- by her and Mahendra for the business of Mahendra, Mahendra has denied the said fact in his cross-examination. There are glaring contradictions in the evidence of the wife and Mahendra and it is clear from the evidence on record that the case of the wife that the husband had assaulted her, as a result of which she suffered a brain injury and that the husband had hired goondas with a view to kill or assault her and Mahendra appears to be false and baseless. The husband appears to be living separately and away from the wife and his sons for more than twelve years. It could be gathered from the evidence tendered by the parties that the sons had joined hands with the wife with a view to extract money from the husband though two plots were purchased by the husband in the name of the wife and the wife and the sons are residing in the house built by the husband on a plot purchased by him. There is also evidence on record to show that the husband was severely beaten up by his sons by a crow-bar and he was admitted in the ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:34 ::: FCA 152/14 18 Judgment Naik Hospital in view of the injuries. Mahendra has admitted in his cross- examination that there was an injury to the wrist of the husband and he was admitted to the Naik Hospital because he had fractured his leg. From the circumstances of the case, it is clear that the husband was mentally tortured by the sons at the behest of the wife and, therefore, he had to leave their company and was residing separately at Deo nagar and thereafter at Korpana from the year 2004. It is informed to this Court by the counsel for the husband that today also, the husband is residing away from the wife and his sons at Katol in the house of his cousin Janrao. It is clear from the evidence on record that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. We find that the family court has not appreciated the evidence at all, much less, in the right perspective. The family court has only recorded the submissions of the parties till Paragraph 16 of the judgment and in a short paragraph, i.e. Paragraph No.17, the family court has observed that the allegations made by the husband against the wife are not of such a serious nature that would result in inflicting cruelty by the wife on the husband. In our view, it was necessary for the family court to have scanned the evidence tendered by the parties before deciding the issues involved in the petition filed by the husband. Though the submissions of the parties are recorded in the judgment, the evidence of the parties is not considered and discussed before dismissing the petition filed by the husband. We find that the husband has not only proved that the wife has treated him with cruelty by proving the ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:34 ::: FCA 152/14 19 Judgment allegations levelled by him against her but, has also proved the same in view of the failure on the part of the wife to prove the serious and reckless allegations levelled by her against the husband in her written statement and in the petition filed by her for grant of maintenance.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the family court appeal is allowed. The judgment of the family court, so far as it dismisses the petition filed by the husband is hereby set aside. The petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty is allowed. The marriage solemnized between the parties on 03.05.1978 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce.
Order accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kahale/APTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 13:32:34 :::