DATTA RAJARAM BHOSLE Vs. KAVITA DATTA BHOSLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS could be considered as defendant's second appeal arising from the defendant's Civil Suit filed by him for divorce on the grounds available to the defendant under the Law of divorce namely, cruelty or ill-treatment, adultery and desertion or abandonment of conjugal domicile. This second appeal was admitted by Order of this court dated 19-4-2002 on substantial questions of law which are enumerated in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of para 8 of the Memorandum of Appeal. It is not necessary to reproduce them herein.

(2.) THERE is 110 dispute that the plaintiff-wife married the defendant-husband on 21-3-1990 and came to reside at the defendant's house at Pomburpa where she had to live with the defendant and his two unmarried sisters. A child was born to them on 16-4-1991. The plaintiff on or about 12-4-1990 went to her mother's house at Cumbarjua and thereafter when both of them namely, the plaintiff-wife and the defendant-husband attended a wedding at Mapusa, the former accompanied the latter and returned to the matrimonial house at Pomburpa. There is no dispute that the plaintiff-wife left the matrimonial house at Pomburpa for the last time on 11-5-1991 and after that the plaintiff-wife filed a suit on 20-11-1992 for restitution of conjugal rights and for maintenance for herself and for the said son. There is also no dispute that the plaintiff-wife left the matrimonial house on 11-5-1991 early in the morning by leaving behind her minor son whom she collected only on the next day. The defendant-husband in an answer to the plaintiff-wife's suit for restitution of conjugal rights, stated that his wife had left the conjugal home without any cause and though he had tried to collect her by all means, the wife did not respond and as such there was no cause of action giving rise to the said suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Later, the defendant filed a suit on or about 7-8-1999 for divorce on grounds stated herein above. At the request of both the parties, evidence was recorded in both the suits and as a result a common Judgment came also to be passed by virtue of which the plaintiff-wife's suit for restitution of conjugal rights and for maintenance was decreed by the trial Court whilst the defendant's suit for divorce was dismissed with costs. The defendant-husband carried an appeal before the District Court and in the course of hearing of the said appeal it was conceded on behalf of the defendant-husband that there was no evidence to support the grounds urged by the defendant-husband of cruelty or ill-treatment and of adultery.

(3.) AT the hearing of the this appeal, Mr. D. P. Bhise, the learned Counsel has submitted that there was no evidence produced by the plaintiff-wife to substantiate the allegation of ill-treatment levelled by her against her husband. It is submitted by Mr. Bhise that the plaintiff-wife left the matrimonial house on 11-5-1991 voluntarily and before the filing of the suit by the defendant the requisite period of desertion or abandonment of conjugal domicile was completed and, therefore, the defendant-husband was entitled to a Decree of Divorce on the ground of desertion.