RAJAN VASANT REVANKAR Vs. SHOBHA RAJAN REVANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the original petitioner-husband against the judgment and decree dated 15th March, 1993 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bombay, in M. J. Petition No. A-877 of 1991. The husband had filed the petition for divorce mainly on two grounds, viz. :- (i)that he was treated by the respondent-wife with cruelty after the solemnisation of the marriage, as contemplated by Clause (ia) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and (ii)that the respondent-wife had deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, as contemplated by Clause (ib) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act. Another ground on which relief was sought was under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act contending that the marriage was not consumated. However, this contention has not been pressed before us. Under the impugned-Judgment, the husbands petition has been dismissed with costs. The wifes counter-claim in respect of certain ornaments, which she claimed as her streedhan property, has been decreed fully to the tune of Rs. 1,15,415/- and the husband has been ordered to pay Rs. 1,200/- per month to the wife by way of maintenance. It is this decree which has been challenged before us by the husband in the present appeal. At the stage of admission of this appeal, this Court directed the husband to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from out of the amount of Rs. 1,15,415/- decreed in favour of the wife. This was the condition on which stay of the decree was granted. The amount of maintenance was raised to Rs. 1,500/- per month pending the appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Shri Gupte, the learned Counsel for the husband, and the respondent-wife in person at great length during the last two weeks. When this matter was initially called out, we enquired with the spouses as to whether it was possible to reconcile their differences and start living together. After a brief adjournment, the parties expressed their inability to reconcile their differences. We had even asked Shri Gupte to act as a mediator and try to bring about a reconciliation between the spouses. However, after a day, he regretted his inability to bring about any reconciliation. When the matter was part-heard over the last week-end, we had again requested both the spouses to meet and try to reconcile their differences, but on resumption of the hearing this week, the parties again expressed their inability to reconcile their differences. Under the circumstances, we are left with no alternative, but to proceed with the matter and decide the same in accordance with law.

(3.) A few admitted facts may be stated as under : the husband Rajan is a Chartered Accountant. The wife Shobha was a B. Sc. with Mathematics when she married the appellant, but in June 1989 she has passed her First LL. B. and in June 1990 she has passed her Second LL. B. and she is now doing her Final Year LL. B. course. The spouses were distantly related and their families had known each other before the marriage. They were engaged at the house of the wife at Bandra-Bombay - on the 19th December, 1985. The marriage took place at Dombivli, near Bombay on the 4th June, 1986. There is some unpleasantness suggested on account of the husbands failure to mention his academic qualifications in the marriage invitation card which was being finalised in the month of May, 1986. This event led the wife and particularly, her father to doubt the appellant being a Chartered Accountant and his holding the requisite qualification. This is clear from the letter dated 15th May, 1986 at Exh. 58 written by the wife to the husband. In the said letter, the wife specifically confessed that she had felt sorry for having questioned his educational qualification and argued with him on that point which had hurt him very much. However, that issue was resolved between the parties and we are not attaching any importance to this controversy, because what is required by section 13 (1) (ia) is that after solemnisation of the marriage, one spouse has treated the other spouse with cruelty.