LORETTA OLIMPIA ROBERTA LOBO E REMEDIOS FURTADO Vs. CAETANO XAVIER IVO DOS REMEDIOS FURTADO SON OF LAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. B. D'Costa, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

(2.) The above Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 04.09.2013 on the following substantial questions of law :

(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the Appellant are that the Appellant-Original Plaintiff and the Respondent-Original Defendant got married somewhere on 08.05.1966. The Appellant was working for Siemens Ltd., in Mumbai, and had an understanding with the Respondent that she would continue to work at the said establishment. Consequently, after spending sometime in Goa, the Appellant returned to her parents in Mumbai and upon the transfer of the Respondent in the year 1967, they lived at Byculla at Mumbai. Subsequently, the Appellant and the Respondent somewhere in the year 1968, shifted to their flat at Bandra along with their son Loyola who was born on 31.07.1967. It was further contended that in the year 1970, the Respondent started harassing the Appellant whereby he used to go out of the house and return intoxicated and abuse the Appellant. Even at functions attended by them, the Appellant would get drunk and falsely accuse the Appellant of having affairs with her superior. In the year 1984, according to the Appellant, the Respondent came home drunk late at night and hit her and consequently the Appellant was forced to shift to the flat she had acquired with her provident fund and filed a police complaint. The elder son of the Appellant met with an accident somewhere in the year 1987 and she was not permitted by the Appellant to see her son for five days. The son ultimately died in the hospital and after the death of her son, upon pleadings of the Boss of the son and the Respondent, the Appellant returned to Bandra on the condition that the Respondent would not harass the Appellant. However, the Respondent within fifteen days, started harassing the Appellant and the situation was as before . The Respondent accused the Appellant of having affairs with other men and making money from prostitution. The Respondent thereafter left Mumbai and came to Goa and ultimately on 14.02.2012, the Appellant filed a suit for Divorce on the ground of the ill treatment and cause injury and that the Appellant and the Respondent were de facto separated for over ten years and also on the ground that the Respondent abandoned the conjugal domicile in Mumbai and came to Goa.