GOVER NEVILLE CARDMASTER Vs. NEVILLE CARDMASTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.3.2005 passed by the Judge, 7th Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No. A-961 of 2002. The respondent had filed petition under Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 read with Section 27(1)(b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion.

(2.) According to the respondent -- original petitioner they got married on 11.11.1988 under the provisions of Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. They cohabited and resided together at Marine Mansion, Marine Street, Mumbai. The respondent contends that on 12.3.1988 he went to Tasmania via Melbourne to study at the Australian Marine Time College. During that period the appellant herein met the respondent. The appellant was already married to one Minoo Rusi Kateli. The appellant and respondent became friendly. The appellant confided with the respondent that she was not happy with her husband and they were on the verge of taking a divorce. It is further contended that the appellant informed the respondent that she was keen to have a family and children from the respondent. It is further contended that the appellant obtained divorce on 20.10.1988 at Melbourne, Australia from her first husband, Thereafter the appellant and respondent got married on 11.11.1988. After marriage the appellant informed the respondent that she had already undergone hysterectomy operation and therefore it could not be possible for her to have children. The respondent felt cheated. They had decided to adopt a baby and ultimately to settle down in India. The respondent admitted in the petition that the age difference between the parties is of 12 years. The appellant is 12 years older than the respondent herein. On 24.12.1990 the appellant and the respondent decided to come back to Mumbai with a view to settle down permanently. It is contended that the appellant is guilty of deserting the respondent since May 1991 for a period of more than two years.

(3.) The Family Court issued summons to the respondent which according to the respondent were served on the appellant through Consulate of India at Victoria, Australia.