VIKASH Vs. VIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -husband has challenged the common judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur, dated 11/06/2012, dismissing the Hindu Marriage petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and allowing the petition filed by the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, by these appeals.

(2.) THE marriage between the appellant -husband and the respondent -wife was solemnized in Arya Samaj Mandir, Hansapuri, Nagpur on 19/01/2009. It is not disputed that neither the parents of the husband nor the parents of the wife were present at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. It is also not in dispute that the husband resided with his parents and the wife resided with her parents after the solemnization of the marriage on 19/01/2009. At the relevant time, the husband and the wife were working as Lecturers in Suyash College of Education. It is the case of the husband that the wife had induced the husband by one way or the other to develop the relations with her. On the other hand, it is the case of the wife that the friends of the husband had persuaded her to get married with the husband and on their guarantee, she had married him. In this background, the marriage was solemnized in Arya Samaj Mandir. It was the case of the husband in the petition filed by him for a decree of divorce that after the marriage, the husband requested the wife to live together at his parents' house, but the wife refused to live with his parents and asked him to purchase a flat at Pachpaoli, Nagpur. It is pleaded by the husband that the marriage was not consummated, as the parties were residing separately. It is pleaded by the husband that though the parties were residing separately, the wife always picked up quarrel with the husband on flimsy grounds. It is pleaded that during the said period, the wife had requested the husband to dissolve the marriage. It is pleaded that the husband realised that it was not possible for the husband and wife to live together, in view of the differences in their thoughts, temperament, habits and the lack of understanding between them. It is pleaded that the wife always threatened the husband that she would lodge complaints against him. It is pleaded that the brother of the wife is a practicing Advocate and he also threatened to involve the husband and his parents in a false case. It is pleaded that on 19/01/2010, the parents of the husband and the relatives visited the house of the parents of the wife and tried to settle the matter. It is pleaded that in the meeting on 19/01/2010, the brother of the wife tried to beat the husband in presence of the family members and friends. It is pleaded that on 03/03/2010, the wife lodged a false report against the husband and his family members. It is pleaded that the husband tried to settle the differences, but he was not successful. It is pleaded that the false report filed by the wife caused great mental stress and trauma to the husband. On the aforesaid pleadings, the husband sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(3.) ON the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Family Court framed the issues in both the petitions and the husband examined himself and three other witnesses. The wife also examined herself and her sister. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Family Court allowed the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights while dismissing the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The judgment of the Family Court is assailed by the husband by two separate Family Court Appeals.