RASHMIKANT B SANJALIWALA Vs. NEETA RASHMIKANT SANJALIWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 21st July 2005 passed by the Family Court dismissing the husband's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and in the alternative for judicial separation.

(2.) THE parties got married on 23rd February, 1996 at Mumbai according to Hindu vedic rites and started residing in joint family at Andheri. In the year 1998, the family got divided. The parties to the appeal along with the parents of the appellant shifted to rental premises, whereas the brother of the appellant and his grand parents continued to live in the old house. There is no issue born from the wedlock. At the time of the marriage, the appellant was a share broker having his office at Dadar, running business in partnership which got dissolved in March 2000. Then the appellant formed a Private Limited Company by name Trendy Securities Pvt. Ltd., of which the appellant and the respondent were the Directors, each entitled to draw salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. They had joint savings account with State Bank of Indore, in which the salary of the respondent was credited. The respondent did not operate the bank account at any point of time. It was operated by the appellant alone. In the year 2000, a flat was purchased in the joint names of the parties, for which loan of Rs.10 lacs was jointly taken from the bank. The installment of the loan was paid alternately from the joint account, in which the salary in the name of the respondent was credited. In November 2002, the respondent went to stay at her parents house. On 8th June 2003, she came to the matrimonial home along with her mother and stayed there for some days. The parties have been living separately since July 2003.

(3.) THE appellant examined himself, his neighbour Hemant and brother Sudhir in support of his case, whereas the respondent examined herself. The trial court appreciated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to establish that the respondent had treated him with cruelty as alleged and found that he is not entitled to a decree of divorce or in the alternative, judicial separation as sought. It also found that the appellant is not entitled to claim that he is the exclusive owner of the flat standing in the joint names of the parties. As regards the claims of the respondent, the Family Court found that she is not entitled either to maintenance or permanent injunction sought in respect of the flat.