AMBIKA RAMAKANT UNIYAL Vs. MR. RAMAKANT SHRIRAM UNIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed by the appellant against the common Judgment & Order dated 13.02.2012 passed by the Judge, Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No. A -1727 of 2008 and Petition No. A -1538 of 2009. By the said Judgment and Order, Petition No. A -1727 of 2008 was dismissed and Petition No. A -1538 of 2009 was allowed and marriage of the appellant and the respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Petition No. A -1727 of 2008 was filed by the appellant -wife claiming a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and Petition No. A -1538 of 2009 was filed by the respondent -husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In FCA No. 48 of 2012, the appellant has challenged the order whereby the petition for decree of restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and FCA No. 50 of 2012 is directed against the order allowing the petition for divorce filed by the respondent. As both the appeals are directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.2012, both the appeals are being disposed of together. It is admitted fact that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 28.02.2002 at Mumbai as per Hindu Vedic rites and customs. Thereafter, the appellant went to the respondent for cohabitation.

(2.) IN Petition No. A -1727 of 2008, the appellant has averred that two sons i.e. Hitendra and Chirayu @ Krishna were born from this wedlock. The elder son Hitendra was born on 21.06.2004 and second son Krishna was born on 15.08.2006. It is an admitted fact that custody of elder son Hitendra is with the respondent -father and the custody of younger child Krishna is with the appellant -mother. It is the case of the appellant that initially, the appellant was treated well. Thereafter, the mother of the respondent had taken all the stridhan and ornaments from her on the pretext of safety and not returned them to her.

(3.) THE respondent has stated in his evidence about the specific instances of cruelty on 04.06.2006. He has stated that he invited RW 3 Vinay Gupta at his home for dinner. On that day, the appellant did not greet him. When RW 3 Vinay Gupta insisted to meet the appellant, she came out of the bedroom and started giving abuses to the respondent and his friend Vinay Gupta. Thereafter, she picked up stainless steel jar full of water and banged it on the respondent's head. This incident has been specifically corroborated and supported by RW Vinay Gupta. Both the respondent and RW 3 Vinay Gupta were cross -examined but no vital admission was got from them to cause us to disbelieve their evidence.