AMIT RAJU JADHAV Vs. SAU. PUJA AMIT JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this first appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Akola dated 22.08.2014, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce.

(2.) THE appellant -Husband and the respondent -Wife were married according to Hindu rites and custom in Akola on 09.04.2012. A girl child was born to the parties from the wedlock. The appellant filed a Hindu Marriage Petition seeking a decree of divorce. It was pleaded in the petition that after the petitioner took the respondent to the matrimonial home, it was noticed by the appellant that the respondent was carrying pregnancy of two months. It was pleaded that the appellant still behaved well with the respondent, however, the respondent started fighting with the appellant on trifle issues. It was pleaded that the respondent went to her parents after fighting with the parents of the appellant on a number of occasions after the marriage though the period during which the parties cohabited was very small. It was pleaded that the respondent behaved with the appellant and his parents with cruelty. It was pleaded that after the girl child Pari was born to the parties, the respondent started residing with her parents. Time and again, according to the appellant, the respondent threatened the appellant and his family members that they would be put behind the bars. It was pleaded that on 05.08.2013, when the appellant was admitted in the hospital, the appellant was beaten up by four goons hired by the father of the respondent. It was pleaded that the respondent continuously abused the parents of the appellant on the ground that they were extremely poor and that she was not happy that her father cheated her and married her in the poor family. It was pleaded that the respondent purposely did not dress up properly and wore short clothes while living with the parents of the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent also doubted the character of the appellant and created a scene. It was pleaded that due to the extreme cruel behaviour of the respondent, the father of the appellant suffered a heart attack on two occasions and the mother of the appellant had consumed sleeping pills. It was pleaded that on more than a couple of occasions, the respondent and her relatives lodged false report against the appellant and his parents in the police station but, the police did not take any action against the appellant and his parents due to the falsity of the reports. It was pleaded that the respondent was not interested in the marriage and asked the appellant to pay her Rs. 10,00,000/ - so that the marriage between the parties could be dissolved. It was pleaded that due to the cruel behaviour on the part of the respondent, it was impossible or the appellant to stay with the respondent under one roof and, hence, the appellant sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant also sought a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion as, according to the appellant, the respondent had left his company and started residing with her parents after the girl child was born.

(3.) SHRI Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Family Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that the appellant had not examined any witnesses to corroborate his evidence. It is submitted that the sufficiency of evidence cannot be decided on the basis of the number of witnesses examined by a party. It is stated that the Family Court committed an error in holding that on the basis of the evidence of the appellant, it cannot be said that he was treated with cruelty. It is submitted that the Family Court unnecessarily gave undue weightage to the fact that the couple was blessed with a female child which was nine months old while declining to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant. It is submitted that it was necessary for the Family Court to discuss the evidence tendered by the appellant and then decide whether the appellant was treated by the respondent with cruelty. It is submitted that on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the appellant, it is clear that the appellant and his family members were treated by the respondent with cruelty. The learned counsel, however, fairly stated that the appellant would not claim a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion.