RAGHUNATH MANDALEKAR Vs. BHUMIKA MANDALEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the two appeal, one of it is against the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 8-A/1997 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Surajpur, whereby the petition filed by the appellant plaintiff Raghunath Mandalekar seeking dissolution of marriage by decree of diverse has been dismissed. The another appeal is against the order of permanent alimony passed in favour, of respondent wife. Both the appeals are by the husband. Since the question of law and facts involved in both these appeals are similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. The brief facts as pleaded by the plaintiff/husband in the application filed by him u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act were that on 05.12.1995 the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with Bhumika Mandalekar, the respondent. It was further stated that after the marriage, the plaintiff was subjected to mental torture by the wife but because of the social surroundings he sustained the same. It was further stated that out of the wedlock a child was borne on 05.12.1995. It was also pleaded that after the birth of the child, the defendant wife did not allow him for cohabitation and refused to have physical relations with the husband and as such the husband was meted out with mental cruelty. It was also stated that the defendant refused to continue with the marriage obligations. The further averments were also made to the effect that threats were extended by the wife many a time to inculpate the plaintiff and their family members in false case of dowry. Pursuant to such threat, the report was also made by the wife but the same was found to be false when the enquiry was made by the Police. It was pleaded that twice the defendant wife left the company of the husband without any reason and started living in different places at Ambikapur. It was further stated that the defendant wife refused to have physical relation on the ground that she has relations with some other male and as such do not want to continue with the plaintiff husband.

(2.) The husband further pleaded that he was physically assaulted by the wife many times and false allegations of illicit relation were also clamped on husband with all vehemence. The husband also stated that because of such behavior of the wife, the mother and father of the appellant/plaintiff were not allowed to stay in the house and as such they had to start living separately which also added mental cruelty to the husband. It was stated that the friends of the husband were also not allowed to visit in the house. The pleading was made to the effect that after the child was borne, the charge of impotency was clamped on the husband plaintiff as the wife started saying that she had conceived pregnancy and gave birth of a child after an injection. It was further stated that the defendant wife tried to administer poison in the food to husband and tried to finish the life of the husband and in order to finish the plaintiff, the wife took the help of his brother. The husband also stated that while he used to sleep, water was poured on him and the wife used to throw articles to wake him up. It was stated that the wife did not allow any physical relation and therefore the matrimonial relation had become totally strained and on several allegations of cruelty, the divorce was claimed.

(3.) Per contra, the wife contended that after the marriage when the wife did not conceive, the mother and lather of the husband had levelled allegations that she was barren and were pressurizing the husband to perform a second marriage. It was stated by the wife that after birth of a child, the behavior towards her was not cordial. It was further stated that after birth of the child, the wife again became pregnant but because of the torture the child had lost the life in the womb itself and as such dead child was borne on 04.11.1987. It was also alleged by the wife that for dowry, the husband wanted to marry again and a counter allegation was also made that the husband had tried to burn her alive by pouring kerosene oil on her. She had also stated that the matter was reported to the police but at the instance of the other people, the report was taken back. The wife further had stated that the plaintiff appellant was working in SECL and without any permission, he was occupying the quarter of SECL and since it caused some dispute as such the plaintiff husband and the defendant wife both of them started living at Ambikapur. Thereafter when the dispute came to a settlement with SECL, both of them again came to Vishrampur from Ambikapur to occupy the house.