ADHYAATMAM BHAAMINI Vs. JAGDISH AMBALAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18th June 1993 rendered by Family Court, Bandra, Bombay in Petition No. A-272 of 1990.

(3.) AT one stage, the Court felt that this being proceeding for dissolution of marriage and that too which was solemnized in year 1959 ought not be allowed to be dissolved by ex-parte proceedings on consideration that the appellant-wife must have some opportunity to contest the matter, but then this appeal is very vehemently opposed by the respondent-husband through his counsel Mr. Anil Mehta. Mr. Mehta pointed out that in the first place, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the proceedings to the Family Court to afford any opportunity to the appellant-wife to adduce evidence as it would bear no fruits whatsoever. He points out that a look at the pleadings filed by the appellant-wife in answer to the Matrimonial Petition instituted by the respondent-husband would reveal that the appellant-wife has been consistently holding out that her husband is guilty of cruelty to her. He relies upon Paragraph 34-g which reads thus : "All of which amount to more than mental cruelty on the part of the petitioner. The respondent states that the petitioner is guilty of the following : fraud in marriage, embezzlement, attempted murder, harassment for dowry and stridhan, confessed adultery, wife's defamation, misrepresentation, mis-information, molestation and general harassment with applied gangster tactics instigating and supporting the trespassing of their younger son and his wife in the wrongful and forceful occupation of the respondent's children's room, and in the case of his mother trespassing her flat in general, even though the respondent had objected to the same, the promotion of flesh trade if not as a trader as a customer and the violation of SITA through immoral traffic as already confessed several times in the privacy of the bed-room. Benamdari transactions by the wrongful use of their elder son's revoked general power of attorney since 1984 July, and tax evasion promotion; infringement of FERA and the NIR status of their elder son who is a USA citizen; the wrongful kinship demotion of their younger son to a `Ghar Jamai' and correspondingly the wrongful kinship promotion of their younger-daughter-in-law to an `adopted daughter' illegally; attempted rape in marriage, irregular sexual relationship demands from wife and its clandestine practice outside; betrayal of trust in marriage, the violation of marriage contract and marriage vows; the violation of a wife's socio-economic status and role; the violation and tarnishing of wife's image in her society and family, the violation of the wife's motherly status and role; the wrongful depreciation of the respondent's invaluable contribution as wife, mother, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, and affinal kin and now as grand-mother; the wrongful depreciation of the respondent image as friend, society member, wife of business partner, as housewife, research scholar, student, intellectual, etc. The respondent states that the contents of the petitioner's M.J.Petition serve as a synopsis to all the above criminal and civil offences within matrimonial while the respondent's reply to the same spells out each crime he has committed against her and her sons throughout these 31 years or more since he has known her."