DNYANESHWAR SHESHRAO PATANGE Vs. SWATI DNYANESHWAR PATANGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Hindu Marriage Petition No. A-334/2004 which was pending in the Family Court, Aurangabad. The petition filed by the petitioner/husband under the provisions of section 13 (1) (i-a) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for relief of dissolution of marriage is dismissed. Notice of the present proceeding was duly served for final hearing on respondent/wife, but nobody has turned up for respondent/wife. The learned counsel for appellant is heard.

(2.) Before considering the rival contentions, the evidence given and the reasoning given by the Trial Court for dismissal of the petition, it is necessary to mention that after filing of the present proceeding, in Regular Civil Suit No. 46/2012 which was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalamnuri for relief of partition and separate possession of the ancestral property by a daughter of respondent/wife, compromise has taken place and in the compromise dated 3.7.2012 present petitioner has agreed to maintain and take care of respondent and daughter and some portion of the ancestral property is also given to the daughter by present petitioner. No separate agreement was there for giving maintenance amount and due to the contents of the compromise document, it can be said that the parties were to resume cohabitation and respondent was to cohabit with the present petitioner. The learned counsel for present appellant submitted that in accordance with the said compromise, the wife had returned to the matrimonial house, but there was short stay, of hardly one month and she again returned back to the house of her parents. These circumstances, the development which took place after filing of the appeal are relevant in view of the provisions of the Act. The Court is expected to get satisfied that the rival contentions and the evidence do not disclose that there will be inconvenience to one side, there was condonation of the alleged ground or there is collusion. The Court is expected to keep in mind that dissolution of marriage is a matter of great import and last expedient of law. Further, there is always discretion of the Court in granting or refusing such relief claimed under the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for appellant submitted that though there was subsequent development as mentioned above, the contentions made by the petitioner in divorce proceeding need to be considered and this Court is expected to decide as to whether the judgment delivered by the Family Court is sustainable in law. He submitted that alternate relief as provided under section 13-A of the Act can also be given in such cases. Due to these submissions, this Court is discussing the rival contentions, the evidence given before the Trial Court and the reasoning given by the Trial Court.