GAYATRI NARAYAN BHAT Vs. NARAYAN SRINIWAS BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal is preferred by the Appellantwife against the judgment and decree dated 20th December, 1994 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bombay in Matrimonial Petition No.A-272 of 1993. By the aforesaid judgment and decree the Family Court dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant-wife on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 for divorce. Few facts which are material to dispose off this appeal are as under:

(2.) ON 9th June 1990 the Appellant and Respondent got married by Hindu Marriage Rites in Bombay. On 11th June, 1990 i.e. two days after the marriage, Appellant and Respondent left for Goa on their honey-moon, but unfortunately returned back within four days. It is the case of the Appellant-wife that, the marriage was not consummated more particularly because of the behaviour of the Respondent-husband insulting the Appellant-wife. Thereafter, Petitioner left for Baroda for pursuing her further studies. In November 1991 Petitioner returned to Bombay from Baroda after finishing her M.D.Examination. Thereafter, Petitioner again returned to Baroda for continuing her term is S.S.G. College at Baroda. It is the case of the Petitioner that, during the honey-moon and even thereafter till the date of filling the Petition there was no consummation of the marriage. Respondent's father was desirous of starting hospital and therefore sought financial support from Petitioner's father. Petitioner therefore liquidated her shares which were in her name and acquired a Nursing Home in the joint name of Petitioner and Respondent. It is an admitted position that, for starting the said nursing home out of the total capital of Rs.12, lakhs, Rs.4 lakhs were given by the father of Respondent and Rs. 8 lakhs were given by the father of the Petitioner. The partnership deed was entered into between the parties and loan from the bank was also procured by arranging the collateral securities by the father of the Appellant. From November 1991 Petitioner started residing with her in-laws and it is the case of the Petitioner that during her stay in her matrimonial house, she was harassed by the Respondent, who was insisting to transfer the hospital, which was in joint name, on his exclusive name and further, Respondent also wanted the colateral securities of the shares held by the Petitioner in her name to be transferred in Respondent's name. By the end of November, 1991 both Petitioner and Respondent shifted from Andheri to the hospital at Bhayander for making themselves available to the patients all the time. Respondent, around December 1991/ January 1992, wanted Petitioner not to stay in the Bhayander Hospital, but to stay at her matrimonial house at Andheri. Respondent further stopped working completely in the Bhayander Hospital. Petitioner contended not only that the Respondent failed to assist her in Bhayander Hospital started in the partnership, but further started disturbing her practice at the hospital. Respondent used to abuse her openly and since March 1992, Respondent deserted the Petitioner. Because of this total disharmony in the matrimonial relation between the Petitioner and the Respondent, Petitioner was unable to repay the loan and, therefore, the said hospital was surrendered to the bank and bank ultimately auctioned the said hospital. On these aforesaid facts, the Petitioner-wife filed the present Matrimonial Petition for the divorce mainly on the ground of cruelty and also prayed for maintenance of Rs.5000.00 per month.

(3.) IN the Trial, Petitioner-wife led evidence of herself and her father. On the other hand, Respondent-husband failed to enter in the witness box. Though various allegations were made in the Matrimonial Petition, the Petitioner was contesting only on one ground i.e. as to, whether Respondent-husband treated his wife with cruelty as alleged by her and whether she is entitled for the divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The Trial Court, after allowing parties to lead the evidence and after hearing both sides, held that Petitioner-wife failed to prove that Respondent-husband was treating her with cruelty and, therefore, dismissed the Petition by his judgment and decree dated 20th December, 1994.