Gujarat High Court
Prashant Arvindbhai Halari vs Nina Vivek Mushale on 28 August, 2020
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya, Sangeeta K. Vishen
C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1481 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
=====================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
=====================================================
PRASHANT ARVINDBHAI HALARI
Versus
NINA VIVEK MUSHALE
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR PJ KANABAR(1416) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. BHAUMIK DHOLARIYA(7009) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NINA VIVEK MUSHALE for the Defendant(s) No. 1
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 28/08/2020
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA) Page 1 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 16.04.2016 passed by the Family Court No.3, Ahmedabad, the appellant has preferred this appeal under section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
2. The factual background arising in this appeal are as under-
2.1 That the appellant-original petitioner and the respondent married on 20.03.2001 at Ahmedabad. The appellant herein preferred an application for divorce under section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on the ground of desertion. It appears from the record that the respondent contested the petition and also filed a counter claim for obtaining decree of dissolution on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act against the appellant under Rule 6(A) of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2.2 The record indicates that after 9 years of their
wedlock, the disputes arose which led to
dissolution of marriage between both the parties. Both the parties adduced documentary evidence to support their case. The learned Family Court framed issues at Exhibit 37 and after considering the evidence on record, the Family Court by the impugned Judgment and Decree was pleased to Page 2 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT dismiss the application for divorce filed by the appellant on the ground of desertion and was pleased to allow the counter claim filed by the respondent and dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty and the learned Family Court was also pleased to award special cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the appellant-original petitioner has preferred this appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Prakash Kanabar, learned advocate for the appellant and the respondent party-in-person.
4. The learned advocate for the appellant as well as the respondent were also permitted to tender written arguments to be placed on the record of this appeal and the same is also made basis of this judgment.
5. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that this Court made an attempt to find out an amicable solution, however, such efforts were not fulfilled and hence, the learned advocate for the appellant as well as the respondent party-in-person were heard on merits.
6. Mr. Kanabar, learned advocate for the appellant orally made the same submissions as is averred in the written arguments submitted before this Court. Mr. Kanabar relied upon factual matrix based upon the record of this appeal and submitted at the outset that the appellant in Page 3 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT fact desires to separate and the appellant therefore also wants that the decree of divorce may be passed. Mr. Kanabar however submitted that the other observations made by the learned Family Court may be quashed as the same may be prejudicial to the interest of the appellant in other proceedings filed by the respondent under the Domestic Violence Act, which is pending in the Court of the learned JMFC, Pune. It was submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to take divorce.
7. Referring to the factual matrix, it was contended by Mr. Kanabar that Issue no.1 was altered by the Family Court, however there is no reference to the same in the Rojkam dated 05.10.2013. It was also contended by Mr. Kanabar that the Family Court has committed an error even in framing Issue No.2.
8. Mr. Kanabar contended that the allegation in the nature of another woman named Namrata Gupta in the life of the appellant is in October 2009 whereas the email addressed by the respondent wife is dated 18.06.2009 wherein the respondent had declared to step out of the relationship with the appellant.
9. It is contended that the respondent has in her written statement and counter claim has stated that the appellant was indulged in criminal acts while working in Patni Computers and was subjected to police custody and has committed crime by developing intimate relationship with one Namrata Gupta. However, such Page 4 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT allegation is not supported by any evidence. It is contended that filing of counter claim would never be at the instance of appellant and it cannot be said that the appellant was taking advantage of his own wrong in getting counter claim filed by the respondent. It is contended that when the allegations of character of the appellant made in the counter claim has remained unproved and therefore, the appellant could not be denied the relief claimed for in the application merely on assumption and presumption.
10. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Vs. Usha Kumar reported in 1977(4) SCC 12, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that if the wife is held entitled for divorce on the ground of unproved facts whereas the husband is denied the relief which the husband is statutorily entitled for as per the provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act, it would amount to travesty of justice. It is also contended that the learned Family Court has committed an error in treating the counter claim at exhibit 22 as evidence of the wife in absence of any evidence in that regard.
11. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ramchandra V. Neela Vijay Kumar reported in 2003(6) SCC 334 and Gurubux Singh v. Harminder Kaur reported in 2010(14) SCC 301, it is contended that the learned Family Court committed a grave error in construing the pleadings more particularly Page 5 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT the written statements and counter claim as evidence. It is contended that such conclusion is dehors the provisions of section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which provides for the definition of word "Evidence". It is also submitted that the Family Court has committed a grave error in giving complete go-bye to the provisions of the Evidence Act and ignored the words "may presume, shall presume and conclusive proof" while appreciating the evidence on record.
12. It is also contended that the respondent has deliberately avoided entering the witness box with a view to avoid, answering the questions that may be put to wife in cross-examination. Referring to the provisions of section 101, 102, 103 and 104 of the Evidence Act, it was contended that the burden of proof lies and as to a particular fact especially within the knowledge of the party. Referring to the observations of the Family Court in paras 21 to 41 of the impugned judgment, it was contended that the same are perverse, arbitrary, illegal, biased and based on no evidence and therefore, the same deserve to be interfered with. It was also contended that the Family Court has failed to consider the contentions of Section 23 and 23A of the Act and has denied decree of divorce on the ground of desertion filed by the appellant on account of husband having failed to prove continuous desertion for a period of 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. It is also contended that the Family Court has committed grave error in interpreting the word animus deserendi.
Page 6 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT13. It is also further contended that as per the provisions of section 23A of the Act, the appellant is entitled to relief on the proved facts. It was further contended that the respondent has deliberately avoided entering the witness box and cross-examination despite the learned Family Court granting all opportunities and therefore, the learned Family Court ought not to have granted the relief of counter claim on unsubstantiated facts. The learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vishwanath S/o. Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal reported in 2012 (7) SCC 288. It is also contended that the even this Court during the course of argument showed inclination to grant one more opportunity to the wife to lead evidence, if she so desires, however, the same was declined. On the aforesaid grounds, it was therefore contended that the appeal be allowed.
14. As against this, the respondent appeared in person and contended that the written arguments shall be filed and that she would rely upon the same and accordingly, the written arguments were filed on 19.08.2019, which is made the basis of the contentions of the respondent.
15. It is contended by the respondent that the appellant did not chose to avail option as contemplated in Order 8 Rule 6C and on the contrary, filed the written submission to the counter claim and that the appellant was aware of the fact that he was contesting the counter Page 7 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT claim.
16. It is contended that the appellant filed this petition only on the ground of desertion and not on the ground of cruelty. It is therefore contended that the appellant was not having any grievance and did not want the divorce on the ground of cruelty. Referring to the issues framed by the Family Court at exhibit 37, it is contended by the respondent that the appellant did not challenge the deletion of the issue and therefore, such plea cannot be raised now in this appeal before this Court. It is contended that the appellant was well aware that he had to lead evidence not only on his petition, but also for the counter claim and that the appellant did not file any application under Order 18 Rule 3 of the CPC. Referring to the Evidence Close Purshis dated 20.09.2014 filed by the appellant, it is contended that the appellant led evidence on his petition as well as the counter claim.
17. It is contended that since the appellant had the first opportunity to lead evidence, he has filed the evidence affidavit vide Exhibit 41, which shows that he not only took the pleadings from the petition but also from his written statement to the counter claim. It is contended that the appellant filed the evidence affidavit for his petition as well as the counter claim. It is contended that therefore, the respondent had only one opportunity to conduct cross-examination of the appellant. Thus, the respondent conducted the cross-examination of the Page 8 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT appellant and brought out admissions to destroy the story of the appellant of desertion and to prove the case of the respondent of cruelty suffered by her at the instance of Appellant. It is contended that the admissions of the appellant in the cross-examination themselves are sufficient and the same has been rightly found to be sufficient by the Family Court to dismiss the case of the appellant of desertion and to allow the counter claim of the respondent of cruelty. It is contended that in such exceptional circumstance the general principle of burden of proof cannot be applied and thus, the Family Court has rightly applied the judicial mind by finding the admissions in the cross- examination to be sufficient to prove the counter claim.
18. It is further contended that the appellant and the respondent were staying together and even planning family in 2009. The appellant also referred to the documents with regard to the family planning treatment undertaken in the month of July and August 2009, sanction of home loan for house purchased in joint name in Ahmedabad, trip to Dubai in October 2009. It is contended that till 2009, the appellant and the respondent have both stayed as husband and wife.
19. The respondent has further contended that the appellant has treated respondent with cruelty and has considered respondent only for financial and physical needs during marital relationship between 2001 to 2009. It is contended that filing of false case on the ground of Page 9 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT desertion for 9 years itself is a cruelty. It is also contended that the attempt on the part of the appellant is to dislodge the respondent from rightful share of the property on the false ground of desertion. The respondent has highlighted the observations made by the Family Court and has referred to the documentary evidence as referred to in paras 9, 18, 18.1, 18.2, 22, 22.1, 23, 25, 26, 31 to 36, 36.2, 36.3, 39, 40 and 41.
20. The respondent has also relied upon the cross- examination at exhibit 41 and it was also contended that there was no desertion as provided under the Act. It is further contended that the appellant has treated the respondent with cruelty and deprived the respondent from access and share of her own house, being flat in Mumbai and Bungalow/House in Ahmedabad. It is contended that the appellant has accepted in written statement that the respondent has paid down payment and also EMI. It is contended that the first EMI was paid by the respondent and the appellant had taken blank security cheque from the respondent and the same was not returned till the orders were passed by the learned trial court in Domestic Violence Case pending in Pune. The respondent as wife has right to the property in addition to the fact that the loan for the property was sanctioned on the credentials of the respondent and that she had also struggled very hard and also directly and/or indirectly contributed to the payment for the properties.
Page 10 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT21. It is further contended that in fact in the year 2009, the respondent was planning to take long leave for family planning and wanted to come down to Ahmedabad and stay with the appellant. It is further contended that the appellant knew that if respondent would come to Ahmedabad, she would not be able to support financially and therefore, the appellant smartly took possession of both the properties situated at Ahmedabad and Mumbai. The respondent has relied upon the document Exhibit 40 to contend that the appellant and his family were trying to harm the respondent.
22. Referring to the cross-examination of the appellant, exhibit 41, it is submitted that the respondent has proved that the appellant has stayed in Modi Resort along with Namrata Gupta and that both stayed in one room. The appellant has also relied upon the phone call records between the appellant and Namrata Gupta. It is contended by the respondent that the respondent was completely in dark until October/November 2009 and that the respondent has been leaving in stress and shock of her life since the happenings of 2009.
23. The respondent has also referred to and relied upon the medical reports of the respondent. It is further contended by the respondent that the respondent had a good job in Infosys and was also trying for assignment in US from 2015 in order to stabilize her life by trying to bring financial stability. It is contended that however, the respondent had to move back to India and also quit Page 11 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT her job in Infosys due to the legal proceedings initiated by the appellant.
24. It is contended that the respondent comes from a respectable and simple family and has not filed any other proceedings except the divorce case and domestic violence case. The respondent has relied upon the details of the judgment, counter claim, written statements of the respondent as well as the documents produced before the Family Court and has contended that the same is sufficient to provide a clear picture about the cruelty of the appellant to the respondent. It is contended by the respondent that the appellant is continuously harassing the respondent by way of litigations to pressurize her to sign the mutual divorce and also to surrender under pressure and transfer both the properties in the name of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant has harassed the respondent and deprived her of any further opportunity to settle in life and have family whereas the appellant is involved with another lady. It is submitted that this Court may take into consideration written statement and dismiss the First Appeal with heavy cost including the cost of travel and advocate fees.
25. It is also noted that in the written arguments, the respondent has made further prayers, however, the same are beyond the issue involved in this appeal.
26. No other or further submissions have been made by the Page 12 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT learned advocate for the appellant or the respondent party-in-person.
27. We have also perused the paper book and have gone through the impugned Judgment and Decree.
28. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed in Family Suit No. 1528 of 2009 on two aspects; firstly the application for divorce filed by the appellant on the ground of desertion which came to be dismissed and second aspect is the counter claim filed by the respondent wife on the ground of cruelty which came to be allowed. It is a matter of record that in the petition filed by the appellant for decree of divorce, the only ground was desertion. Section 13(1)(ib) clearly provides that desertion has to be for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Explanation to the said provision clearly provides that desertion would mean desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without consent or wish of such party and includes willful neglect of the petitioner by other party to the marriage. In order to examine the issue of desertion, it would be appropriate to refer to Exhibit 41 oral evidence adduced by the appellant. In his cross-examination, he has averred that there is a property in the name of appellant as well as respondent jointly at Ahmedabad and Mumbai. In his cross-examination, further the appellant has stated that the registration of the property at Ahmedabad was done Page 13 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT in 2009 and that of Mumbai in 2005. It is also stated by the appellant that bank loan for the Ahmedabad property was sanctioned in February/March 2009. He has also admitted that the Bank loan was sanctioned in the name of both appellant and respondent, i.e, husband and wife and blank security cheque was given which was in the name of the respondent. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that in October 2009, he went to Dubai with the respondent, i.e., his wife. Even in his cross-examination, the appellant has admitted that in July 2009, the respondent wife stayed at Sunset Row House, i.e, her parents house situated in Ahmedabad.
29. It is also admitted in the cross-examination that the respondent had taken the treatment of family planning in July 2009 and also in August 2009 at Pune and the appellant has further stated that he had gone to Pune to the Respondent and treatment was taken. He has also admitted that the application for divorce is filed in December 2009. Thus, from the very admission in the cross-examination at exhibit 41, it clearly transpires that in the month of August 2009, the appellant had gone to the house of respondent at Pune and treatment for family planning was taken at Pune in the month of August 2009. The appellant has also admitted that in the month of October 2009, he went to Dubai with respondent wife. The fact remains that the application for divorce on the ground of desertion was filed by the appellant on 29.12.2009. Hence, there was no continuous desertion for a period of two years as Page 14 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT provided under section 13(1)(ib). The admission is made by the appellant in his cross-examination that the respondent accompanied the appellant on official tour of Dubai in the Month of October 2009. The learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and more particularly the admission made by the appellant in his oral testimony at exhibit 41 and therefore has correctly come to the conclusion that the desertion as provided under section 13(1)(ib) is not proved by the appellant.
30. Upon reappreciation of the evidence, it cannot be said that the conduct of the respondent wife is indicative of a firm determination not to return to the marital home and discharge obligations attached thereto. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the respondent was willing to expand the family for which the appellant also attended the treatment being given at Ahmedabad and Pune and therefore, the Family Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant has not been able to prove desertion as provided under section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the finding on desertion arrived at by the learned Family Court including the explanation to section 13(1)(ib) is rightly appreciated by the Family Court, which does not require any interference.
31. The contention as regards deletion of Issue No.1 and modification/alteration of Issue No.2 is taken for the first time before this Court in the appeal and after issues Page 15 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT were framed at exhibit 37 by the Family Court, the appellant has not raised any objection to the same and therefore, such contention cannot be permitted to be taken now by the appellant. The learned Family Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record, which proves that the appellant and respondent stayed together at Ahmedabad in June-July 2009 and also took medical treatment for family planning and also took treatment at Pune in August 2009 for the very purpose and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent had intention to bring an end to cohabitation permanently. The evidence shows that the respondent has taken leave from her service in July and stayed with appellant in Ahmedabad and took treatment as aforesaid and therefore, the Family Court has correctly come to the conclusion that the essential ingredients of animus descerendi does not exist and the appellant has failed to prove the same and the finding arrived at by the Family Court that the respondent wife is not guilty of matrimonial desertion as provided under section 13(1)(ib) of the Act is rightly decided and no interference is called for.
32. The Family Court has considered the fact that the word cruelty has not been defined under the Act, but conduct of the party exhibits the suffering of the wife, may be, by way of mental cruelty and the Family Court is therefore correct in coming to the conclusion that the cruelty cannot come under any straight jacket formula but the same depends on the facts of each case on its own merits.
Page 16 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT33. The Family Court has taken into consideration the fact that the respondent has preferred not to enter the witness box to substantiate her assertion made in the counter claim. However, the Family Court has considered the oral deposition of the appellant at exhibit 41 and the cross-examination of the appellant. Even in the cross-examination, the appellant has admitted that in the year 2006, the respondent visited USA and at that time, certain amount from her account were deposited in the account of the appellant in terms of dollars.
34. In his cross-examination, the appellant has admitted the fact that between June 2009 to November 2009, he was working in Gateway Technolab and had travelled to Dubai, USA, U.K. He has also further admitted the fact that in September 2009, he had travelled to UK and USA with a female colleague. In his cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that in September-October 2009, for three weeks, he had gone to USA and UK and Namrata Gupta was with him in the said official tour. He has also admitted the fact that after leaving the job of the said Company, he also met Namrata Gupta. He has also admitted that he is the Director and CEO of Synoverge Technologies Pvt. Ltd and Namrata Gupta is also one of the Directors. He has also admitted the fact that he had gone to Modi Resorts situated at Ubharat and Namrata Gupta was with him along with Sanjeev Shamla and Shrikrushna Nikal who had come from Mumbai. He has admitted the fact that he and Namrata Page 17 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Gupta went from Ahmedabad to Ubharat and stayed at the resort for two days. He has also stated that the room was booked in the name of Prashant Halari and Family. He has also further admitted in his cross- examination that the respondent wife was planning for family and in June July 2009 IUV treatment was taken for family growth at Ahmedabad and Pune.
35. Even thereafter, the appellant took the respondent to Dubai. As correctly noted by the Family Court, the appellant has admitted and confessed in his cross- examination that the respondent took job at Infosys in Pune with the consent of the appellant and he had supported the said decision of the respondent. On such set of evidence on record, it transpires that on one hand the appellant remained connected with the respondent, but support was illusive in nature. The conduct of the appellant shows that even though the respondent was ready to take long leave from Pune and stay with him at Ahmedabad, the appellant did not approve the same and on the other hand, the appellant admits that he went to official foreign tours with his colleague Namrata Gupta. Neglecting legally wedded wife and developing close intimacy with other lady constitute cruelty. The appellant has admitted in his cross-examination at Exhibit 41 that he went to Ubhrat from Ahmedabad with Namrata Gupta and stayed at Modi Resort and even though attempt has been made to give a cloud of such travel and tour to Modi Resort, situated at Ubharat on the basis that other two colleagues joined them from Page 18 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Mumbai, the appellant has not been able to give proper and reasonable explanation for visiting Ubharat with Namrata Gupta.
36. Though immovable property at Ahmedabad, Bungalow situated at Mahalay - II, Sola, Ahmedabad are in joint names of the appellant and the respondent and in fact the respondent also paid the security deposit, in the invitation card for housewarming ceremony, the name of the respondent who happens to be the wife and who are expected to stay in that very house together was shown as "well-wisher" instead of invitees. Thus, the Family Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the conduct of the appellant shows and indicates that the appellant neglected and ignored and thereby committed act of mental cruelty upon the respondent wife who is well educated and well-placed in her career.
37. Though the appellant tried to build the case by contending that the respondent refused a job at Patni Computers in Ahmedabad and that the respondent was career minded lady, in his cross-examination, as mentioned hereinabove, the appellant has admitted that with his consent, the respondent joined services of Infosys at Pune. Upon re-appreciation of such evidence, which is also in form of admission on the part of the respondent, the same constitutes mental cruelty upon the respondent wife.
38. The case of Dharmendra Kumar (supra), relied upon by Page 19 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT the appellant, would not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case on hand, as discussed hereinabove, the appellant himself has admitted certain facts in his cross examination at exhibit 41 and therefore, the said judgment would not be applicable in the present case.
39. In facts of this case, it cannot be said that there are three isolated instances or certain period and therefore, the cruelty is not proved. The very conduct of the appellant and his admission in the cross-examination clearly establishes that the appellant is guilty of cruelty towards respondent-his wife who has equally shared her burden during the period of wedlock. Considering the evidence and more particularly the admissions made by the appellant in the case on hand, it cannot be said that there were normal wear and tear in the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. In the case on hand, no such allegations are made by the respondent wife against the appellant. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the appellant has admitted the fact that he has travelled abroad with his colleague and even to Ubharat and therefore, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurbux Singh(supra) and Vishwanath (supra)would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
40. Considering the totality of the facts and upon re- appreciation of the evidence on record, no interference is called for in the findings arrived at by the Family Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby Page 20 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020 C/FA/1481/2016 CAV JUDGMENT dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) FURTHER ORDER After the pronouncement of the judgment, Mr. Kanabar, learned advocate for the appellant prayed for extension of interim relief granted by this Court, while admitting the appeal, to enable him to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
To enable him to do so, the interim relief granted earlier is extended for a period of six weeks from today.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) DRASHTI K. SHUKLA Page 21 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 11 00:54:16 IST 2020