NILAMBARI NARENDRA BHOSALE Vs. NARENDRA BABURAO BHOSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case where this Division Bench and even the earlier Bench repeatedly tried to bring about amicable settlement between the parties. Even both the learned counsel tried their best. But, unfortunately, there was no success. We were of the view that Judicial verdict is not going to be a real solution to the dispute. Though the Judgment could have been pronounced earlier, we delayed the pronouncement with the hope that the parties will see the reason. But, what we were hoping for has not happened. Hence, with some reluctance that we are coming out with our verdict.

(2.) THESE are the Appeals preferred by the wife. The marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnised in accordance with Hindu Vedic Rites on 7th May, 1993. On 29th March, 1994, a female child by the name Tanvi (earlier known as Niyati) was born. The husband filed a Petition bearing A -860 of 1996 for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Clause (i -a) of Sub -section (1) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1950 (for short "the said Act"). The wife filed a Petition being Petition No. A -295 of 1999 for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the said Act. The Appellant wife also filed a Petition being Petition No. C -119 of 2005 under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short "the said Act of 1956") against the husband for claiming maintenance. The Appellant wife claimed maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ - pm each for herself and her daughter with effect from 25th May, 1995. She prayed for a decree directing the husband to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/ - pm with effect from 25th May, 1995 towards her residence. All the three Petitions were contested. The said Petitions were heard together by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Mumbai and were decided by a common judgment dated 16th January, 2007. The operative part of the impugned judgment and decree reads thus: - -

(3.) THE learned Judge held that the ground of cruelty has been established by the Respondent husband. The learned Judge held that the Appellant -wife is dis -entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Though the learned Judge granted maintenance as aforesaid, he did not grant any amount towards the rent payable to the wife.