AJAY SAYAJIRAO DESAI Vs. RAJASHREE AJAY DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th July, 2000 rendered by the Family Court, Pune in Petition no. A-801 of 1998 filed by the appellant- husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds available under section 13 (1) (i- a) (i-b) of the Act as also for custody of a minor child - Jaydeep. The family court dismissed the petition with costs.

(2.) Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows ; the appellant (for short the 'husband') and the respondent (for short the 'wife') tied the nuptial knot on 27-5-1994. They were blessed with one child, who was born on 26- 10-1995. The child is now nine years old. The marriage was what is commonly known as 'arranged marriage'. After the marriage the wife started residing with the husband, his parents and sister at Pune. At the relevant time the husband's mother was working with m. S. E. B. The case set up by the husband was that right from beginning the wife's behaviour was strange and rude. She went to Nagpur, her mother's place, for delivery in July, 1995 and thereafter never returned to her matrimonial home at Pune. During her stay at pune she subjected the husband to cruelty. Several instances are quoted in the pleadings as also in the evidence led by the husband which, according to him, amounted to cruelty. It appears that the wife had a white spot (lucoderma) on her body which was allegedly suppressed by her and her parents while settling the marriage. After marriage, to suppress it further, it is alleged that twice she slapped the husband when there was an attempt to touch her body part where she had the white spot. According to the husband, from inception the wife started insisting separate residence to which he was not prepared being the only son of his parents. It is alleged that her conduct with his mentally challenged ( ) sister and parents was also not proper. The allegation is also made against the wife that she used to give threats to the husband that if he did not agree to reside separately from his parents and sister, he would suffer serious consequences. After delivery on 26-10-1995, the husband and his parents made several attempts to bring her back to pune to which there was no response from the wife inasmuch as she wanted to reside separately. As a result of which on 20th february, 1996 the husband sent a notice calling upon the wife to come back to Pune for co-habitation. The wife replied to the notice on 1-3-1996. Even thereafter the husband and his family members made futile attempts to bring her back. Against this backdrop the husband filed Petition No. P/a/ 877/1996 under section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the family court at Pune. After service of the petition, the wife filed written statement on 6-7-1997 in which she tried to justify her withdrawal from the society of the husband. The husband on 10- 7-1997 withdrew the said petition without assigning any reason whatsoever. Thereafter on 11-10-1998 he filed Petition No. P/a/801/ 1998 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion as also custody of the child. The wife filed her written statement in the petition opposing the prayers made therein on 4-1- 1999. To prove the allegations against the wife, the husband examined himself and his mother, and in the course of their evidence produced several letters, written by the parties to each other, on record. As against this, the wife examined herself and her mother and also produced several letters on record in support of her contentions. The family court has extensively dealt with evidence led by the parties and found that the allegations which allegedly caused mental agony and cruelty were unfounded. Even on the point of desertion the family court held against the husband. Similarly, the prayer for custody was also rejected by the family court. It is against this backdrop the present appeal has been filed by the husband.

(3.) Before we advert to the merits of the case let us place on record that we made all efforts for reconciliation inasmuch as the wife expressed that she was prepared to go back to the husband alongwith the child. We interviewed the parties as also requested learned counsel appearing for the spouses to meet outside the court and try to reconcile their differences. However, all the efforts to reconcile their differences failed. Under the circumstances, we were left with no alternative but to proceed with the matter and decide the same in accordance with the law.