(1.) These two Family Court Appeals are arising out of matrimonial disputes between husband and wife. Family Court Appeal No. 130 of 1992 is filed by the wife against the judgement and decree dated 18.10.1991 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bandra, Bombay, in M.J. Petition No. 698 of 1986. By the aforesaid judgement and decree, the Family Court dismissed the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. However, the Family Court awarded permanent alimony to the child Tejas at therateofRs.850.00 per month from the date of the decree and also further directed that wife will be entitled to receive the said permanent alimony of Rs. 850.00 per month for and on behalf of minor child Tejas. Against the said judgement and decree, wife has filed Family Court Appeal being Appeal No. 130 of 1992.
(2.) Husband on the other hand filed Marriage Petition No. 207 of 1989 before the learned II Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Thane for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. On the same facts, as mentioned earlier in the said petition, wife took the same stand as she had taken in Marriage Petition No. 698 of 1987. After allowing both the parties to file their respective written statements before the Family Court as well as Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Thane, both the respective Trial Courts allowed both the parties to lead evidence and make their submissions in respect of their claims in the petitions and in the written statements and after hearing both the sides, the Trial Courts dismissed the respective petitions filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights and by husband for divorce against which wife preferred Family Court Appeal No. 130 of 1992 and husband preferred Family Court Appeal No. 69 of 1996. Both these aforesaid appeals are subject matter of controversy before us.
(3.) Since parties to both these Family Court Appeals are same and since disputes in both these Family Court Appeals are intrinsically connected with each other, in order to understand the rival contentions in right prospective, we have read the evidence in both these appeals together and after hearing both the sides, we are disposing of both of these appeals by the common judgment.