PRAKASH GOPAL VIRGINKAR Vs. UMADEVI PRAKASH VIRGINKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in Matrimonial Petition No. 51/2002 has come in this appeal against the Judgment and Order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panaji dismissing his petition for divorce under Article 4 (5) and (8) of the Law of Divorce on the ground of abandonment of conjugal domicile and de facto separation freely consented for 10 consecutive 10 years.

(2.) I have heard the leaned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to the dispute, in brief, are thus: the parties were married at St. Cruz, Goa and it was registered in the Office of Sub Registrar of Ilhas, at Panaji, Goa on 31. 1. 1982. The plaintiff and the defendant, after marriage, started residing in the conjugal domicile at Margao at the residential house of the plaintiff husband until 1983. Thereafter, the plaintiff with the defendant stated residing at Ramnath Building at Altinho, Panaji, Goa and later at "gangotri", Altinho, Panaji till the year 1988. There were three children born out of the wedlock. It is the case sought to be made out by the appellant plaintiff that on account of adamant nature of the defendant and her pride on account of riches, frequent quarrels started taking place between them. However, the plaintiff always tried to pacify the defendant and tried to settle the matter ignoring the attitude of the defendant wife. It is further alleged that prior to the separation, the defendant wife on account of adamant attitude used to leave the matrimonial house as well as the places wherever they resided subsequently, and always to go to her parents' palace giving a warning to the plaintiff husband that she wanted divorce from him and lived separately from the husband. Finally, on account of high handed behaviour of the defendant wife, sometimes since August, 1988 the plaintiff and the defendant consented to stay separately and have been living separately from August, 1988 onwards till the date of the suit. According to the plaintiff, since then they have not seen each other till filing of the suit and the idea of separation originated from the defendant and she started picking up quarrels with the plaintiff saying that the status of the plaintiff was lower than that of the defendant and that if he wanted the defendant's company, the plaintiff would be required to dance to the tune and fancies of the defendant. The plaintiff, after separation, sometimes in April, 1997 left for Kuwait on account of his job and is working in Kuwait since then and comes down to India and stays at different places. Hence, it is the case sought to be made out by the plaintiff that there is complete abandonment of conjugal domicile between the plaintiff and the defendant from the period from August, 1988 till the date of filing of the suit and there is a de facto separation between the plaintiff and the defendant consented by the defendant from August, 1988 and hence the divorce is claimed under Article 4 (5) and (8) of the Law of Divorce. Hence, the petition. The defendant contested the claim denying the allegations made by the plaintiff. The sound of the defendant's defence is to the effect that the plaintiff was given a bad vices and in spite of the best efforts made by the defendant wife to reconcile the differences, the plaintiff never responded and hence the grounds sought to be made out for divorce are false. The allegation that there is de facto separation with free consent is specifically denied by the defendant. On such and other grounds, the petition is sought to be dismissed with cots.