ASHOK TORASKAR Vs. ALKA ASHOK TORASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant-husband in Matrimonial Petition no. 65/99 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and Order passed by the Civil Judge, sr. Division, Mapusa dated 6/3/2003, decreeing the divorce in favour of the plaintiff-wife under article 4 (4) of the Law of Divorce as applicable to the State of Goa. It was directed that the custody of the minor Amit Toraskar be given to the plaintiff till he attains majority with direction that the plaintiff shall maintain the said amit till he attains majority. It may also be noted that the order in respect of the child is not challenged, but the order of divorce under article 4 (4) is the only subject matter of this appeal.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. The respondent-wife did file the matrimonial petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery as contemplated under article 4 (2) and (4) of the Law of Divorce. The plaintiff-wife came with a case that her marriage was solemnized as per Hindu religious rites on 22. 11. 79 and prior to that their marriage was registered in the Office of Civil Registrar at Mapusa on 13. 11. 79. After the marriage, the couple started residing in the matrimonial house at Tivim. It was alleged that on the next day of the marriage, the defendant informed the plaintiff-wife about his girl friend in Sharjah. The defendant-husband even told her that he was having physical sexual relationship with his next door neighbour. The plaintiff was, shocked on hearing this. She tried to convince the defendant not to live the life of adultery, but in vain. On the fourth day of their marriage, while the couple were in the house, the sister of the defendant offered alcoholic drink to her. The plaintiff was not accustomed to the environment. The defendant abused the plaintiff and said that she was a new comer in the house and his sister knew more about the defendant and his likes and dislikes and since then the quarrels and ill-treatment began. According to the plaintiff, the defendant in the feat of anger literally pushed the plaintiff out of house and told her to go back to her mother's house. However, the plaintiff just sat outside the house crying and after long time the brother-in-law of the plaintiff came out of the house and took her inside the house. The defendant at the time of the marriage with the plaintiff was working in Sharjah. He left Goa on 30. 1. 80 for Sharjah, dubai and later on the plaintiff also proceeded to Sharjah, in March, 1980. The defendant was working in a company, and to her horror, the plaintiff found that one girl by name Lifa was living with him in the same house. Though the defendant was just married with the plaintiff, instead of being in the company of the plaintiff, he would always go around with the said Lifa leaving the plaintiff alone in the house and used to return at 2 to 3 in the night. He was also a heavy drunkard and under the influence of alcohol the defendant used to, physically assault the plaintiff on many occasions and used to use Filthy language while abusing her. The plaintiff was then young girl, besides she was in an alien country and therefore, she had no alternative, but to suffer the assaults and obscene abuses and harassment at the hands of the defendant. The said Lifa used to be in the house of the defendant practically everyday. After sometime, the plaintiff remained pregnant and baby girl was born in December, 1980, however, that did not deter the defendant from his misdeeds. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant was not only maintaining adulterous relationship with the said Lifa, but was also involved with her neighbour's wife. In short, it is the case sought to be made out by the plaintiff that the defendant was a person living in debauchrous behaviour. He was heavy drunkard, smoker and womanizer. The plaintiff has sought to make out a case that defendant was such a person that he used to flaunt his adulterous connection with Lifa and others, and used to humiliate the plaintiff in their presence. Around the year 1981, the parties returned to Goa to attend the wedding of the sister of the defendant and when the defendant was in Goa, he used to drink heavily and the plaintiff used to object to his drinking and was getting angry due to that. He left the child and the plaintiff in Goa and went back stating that until and unless the plaintiff would not apologize, the defendant would not take them back. While she was living with her in-laws, she was also ill-treated by them in various ways. Finally in or around 1987, the plaintiff came to goa and took her with him. However, the same treatment continued and the plaintiff got fed up with such behaviour of the defendant and left sharjah and came down to Goa with her two children and purchased a flat out of her own savings at Mapusa where she started living. On 2. 12. 94, the defendant came to the house and created scenes. The defendant started alleging that he had received two letters stating that the plaintiff was living in adultery and started abusing the plaintiff with loud voice and assaulted her with slaps, kicks, fist blows. She tried to run away in the room, however, the defendant caught hold of her by her neck and tried to strangulate her, pushed her and banged her on the wall, as a result, the plaintiff became unconscious. The minor son of the defendant who was in the house was so agitated ithat on seeing that he tried to assault the defendant with chappies. The defendant, thereafter, forcibly opened the cupboard of the plaintiff and took valuables of the plaintiff and went away. Thereafter, the plaintiff was convinced that the defendant was not interested in continuing with the marriage and finally legal notice came to be issued by the plaintiff showing her intention to take divorce by consent. The defendant by his letter dated 11. 3. 95 rejected the offer of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff filed the matrimonial petition on the ground of cruelty and adultery under article 4 (2) and (4) on 2. 12. 1994. Pending the suit, the plaintiff also preferred amendment of the plaint, incorporating subsequent development which took place on 27th, 28th and 29th November, 1996 stating that the plaintiff and the defendant were staying away from the year 1989 and that the defendant had not gone to the flat of the plaintiff since december, 1994. The plaintiff filed interim application for injunction which was granted against the defendant and he was restrained from interfering with the life of the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant contested the petition, inter alia, denying all the allegations and submitted that the plaintiff was living in adultery and did not want to continue with the marital relationship between them. On such and other grounds, the petition was dismissed.