SADHANA SATISH KOLVANKAR Vs. SATISH SACHIDANAND KOLVANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Family Court Appeal is filed by a wife seeking to challenge the judgment and order dated 11th January 1999 passed by a Judge, Family court, Mumbai, on a Petition moved by the respondent-husband being M. J. Petition No. A-147 of 1995. That Petition prayed for a decree of nullity on the ground of non-consummation of marriage owing to the impotence of the Appellant under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the said Act") and in the alternative for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the said Act. The Judge of the Family court held that both these grounds were established and has granted a decree on both the prayers. Being aggrieved by that judgment and order, the present Appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE Appeal having been admitted, there has been a stay of the impugned judgment and order. The Respondent has, therefore, not re-married. Under the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was directed to be paid an amount of rs. 500/- per month towards maintenance under section 25 of the said Act. There has also been an order to pay her an amount of Rs. 500/-additionally in a proceeding taken out by her under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both these orders have been complied with so far, though with some interruption at times. After the appeal was admitted, an earlier Division Bench hearing the Appeal suggested the Respondent on 26th june 2000 that he should consider paying a sum of rs. 500/- more. The Respondent pointed out that he was working as a Crane Operator in Mazgaon Ltd. (a government Undertaking) and had obligations towards his old mother and the widow of his deceased brother and further that at that time his actual take home salary was hardly Rs. 4,000/ -. However, in deference to the suggestion of the Court, the respondent agreed to pay Rs. 500/ more. Thus, as of now, Rs. 1500/- is being paid to the Appellant wife per month and there are no arrears in this behalf. Before we further deal with the matter, we would like to record at the outset that we took good efforts to see if the controversy could be resolved amicably either by the parties coming together or by separating on agreed terms. However, the efforts did not succeed.

(3.) THE facts leading to the filing of the petition for nullity divorce are as follows:-