RAJENDRA SADASHIV DHAWALE Vs. YOJANA RAJENDRA DHAWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The names of both the parties in the cause title have been masked. Both the Appeals are preferred by the Appellant husband. The marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnized on 25th May 1990 as per the Hindu Vedic Rites. The Appellant husband filed Petition No. A-383 of 2004 in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The husband sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Clauses (i-a) and (i-b) of Sub- section (1) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the said Act"). The Respondent wife filed a Petition No. A-808 of 2002 in the same Family Court for judicial separation. The Petition for judicial separation was filed by the Respondent wife on 23 rd April 2002 and the Petition for divorce was filed by the Appellant husband on 23 rd February 2004. By the impugned judgment, both the Petitions were decided by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Mumbai. The Petition filed by the Respondent wife was allowed by granting a decree of judicial separation. The Appellant husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Respondent wife from the date of the impugned decree. In addition, the Appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month each to the two minor children from 4th October 2005. The Petition filed by the Appellant husband for divorce was dismissed.

(2.) Family Court Appeal No.16 of 2008 has been preferred by the Appellant husband for challenging the decree of dismissal of the Petition for divorce and Family Court Appeal No.17 of 2008 has been preferred by the Appellant husband for challenging the decree passed on the Petition for judicial separation.

(3.) The learned Judge of the Family Court in the Petition filed by the Appellant husband held that he has failed to establish both the grounds of cruelty and desertion. In the impugned judgment in Paragraph 55, the learned Judge referred to the allegations made by the Appellant husband against the Respondent wife about her illicit relationship with one Satyaprakash Sharma. He held that the said allegations have not been substantiated by the Appellant husband and, therefore, the said allegations caused cruelty to the Respondent wife.