SHEELA SAMBHAJI KAMBLE Vs. SAMBHAJI DATTU KAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Family Court Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1993 passed by the Family Court at Pune in Petition A. No. 258 of 1991. By the aforesaid judgment and decree the Family Court allowed the petition and decreed that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent stands resolved from 30.9.1993.

(2.) THE appellant in this case is wife of respondent. The respondent husband -filed a petition for divorce on the ground of desertion and also on the ground of cruelty. It is the case of respondent that he got married with the present appellant on 11.5.1988 at Solapur as per the Buddhists religious ceremony. Thereafter both the husband and wife were residing at 221, Laxmi Nagar, Yerawada at Pune. At the said premises the respondent -husband was staying with the appellant -wife and only his brother Prabhakar used to come to their residence for taking food. The said brother Prabhakar used to reside at the place of the respondent's sister's house. Respondent's parents were residing at Solapur. According to the respondent from the inception of the marriage the appellant -wife showed unhappiness about the matrimonial relationship, as according to her, the said marriage was forced upon her by her father. In fact she intended to marry Doctor or Engineer. It is further alleged that the appellant -wife used to quarrel with the respondent and also used to utter filthy abusive language. On many occasions she threw her 'Mangalsutra' and frequently she used to insult the respondent and used to say that she will run away with somebody. She also used to give the threat that she will kill herself by burning and stated that she did not wish to continue the matrimonial relationship and intended to have a divorce.

(3.) THEREAFTER the appellant's father alongwith the appellant's cousin Suresh Bhosale intended to take the appellant from the matrimonial house, however, because of the request of brother Prabhakar, sister Yashodhara and cousin Ashok she continued to stay at the matrimonial house. Somewhere in March, 1989 the respondent -husband took the appellant to Nilanga at her father's place for delivery. Thereafter on 25.4.1989 she delivered male child and she never returned to matrimonial house. During her stay with her father she addressed few letters to him expressing her intention to take divorce and also threatened him that she will set herself on fire in the matrimonial house. Getting tired with these threats and tantrums of the appellant the respondent -husband gave notice dated 4.7.1989 (Exh. 30) calling upon her to return back to matrimonial house. However she refused to return. Therefore, the respondent -husband approached the community Panchas for settlement but all his attempts failed due to obstinate attitude of the appellant -wife and her family members. The respondent further contended that on 19.3.1990 she filed an application for maintenance. However the respondent -husband failed to attend the Court due to apprehension that he may be assaulted had he con tested the case and therefore in the said application ex parte order of maintenance was passed wherein the present respondent -husband was directed to pay Rs. 100/ - per month as maintenance to the wife. On this aforesaid ground the respondent has filed the petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The aforesaid petition was resisted by the wife by filing written statement wherein she stated that in fact her father never forced to marry the respondent but she married respondent by her own Will. She denied that she had at any time expressed to respondent -husband that she intended to marry Doctor or Engineer. She also denied all the allegations about the quarrelsome nature, filthy language, throwing Mangalsutra threatening to run away with somebody and threatening to kill herself. It is the case of the appellant -wife that her parents were school teachers and she studied upto S.Y.B.A. At the relevant time the respondent -husband was Supervisor in the scheme of adult education and after due deliberation both the parties decided to get married and accordingly the marriage got solemnised on 11.5.1988. However according to her after the marriage both husband and his brother, his sister and his mother -in -law started harassing her and call upon her to bring an amount of Rs. 20,000/ - and also a motor cycle so as to enable the respondent -husband to purchase accommodation and to enable him to go to his office for attending the work. Since her parents already had spent an amount of Rs. 50/000/ - during the marriage, she could not accede to the demand of her husband and other members of his family due to which according to her she was beaten mercilessly, she was not given food and every now and then an attempt was also made by pouring kerosene on her body so that if she fails to fulfil the demand as mentioned aforesaid, she will be set on fire. She further has stated that when the said assault and persecution went beyond the limitation she was also constrained to write two letters on 12.12.1988 and 5.2.1989 which are Exhs. 44 and 45 wherein she informed her father about the demand s from her husband and his family members and about the treatment given to her in the house. She further has contended that for the purpose of delivery the husband left her to her father's place somewhere in March, 1989 and on 25.4.1989, male child was born to her. The child born was hardly 2 kgs. of weight; was very weak and therefore Doctor advised to take him to bigger hospital and take care of the child atleast for next 6 months by giving him protection and medicine. Inspite of delivery of the child the respondent -husband came to her only once and thereafter he has never come to her house to see the child even after the filing of the petition. In fact according to her he had informed that he has neither interested in appellant nor in the child. In fact according to her it is the duty of the respondent -husband to provide money for medical expenses of the child. Inspite of this she addressed a letter to her husband on 18.5.1988 which is at Exh. 26 wherein she requested him to come to her house to take her and his son back to matrimonial house. After the delivery of the child since the respondent -husband failed to come to her place to see her and the child and to look after the child and since instead of going to the appellant's house for taking back her and his son to his house, the respondent -husband sent a message that he intended to take divorce and that all his family members are of the opinion that the said marriage should be put to an end. She got disturbed and annoyed. In the meantime it appears that she also received one letter whereby she was told that by the same letter the respondent -husband has taken divorce from her. Due to this out of annoyance she addressed one more letter dated 18.5.1989 at Exh. 29 to her neighbour wherein she stated that if her husband the respondent fails to come to her house for taking her to matrimonial house she will come to the matrimonial house alongwith her mother. Further the respondent instead of doing that sent a message that he intend to have divorce with her and that he is not interested in her as well as the newly born child. She therefore addressed one letter out of annoyance dated 22.8.1989 which at Exh. 27 addressed to her father -in -law and mother -in -law. In that letter she stated that since all the family members have conspired to put an and to the marriage between herself and respondent she is ready and willing to give the divorce. She also stated that the divorce cannot be taken by expressing the intention in the letter and the same can only be taken by approaching the Court. In view of this she also decided that this matrimonial relationship should have to be put to an end and therefore it is desirable to get the divorce by approaching the Court. She also stated that since in the marriage her father had spent about Rs. 50,000/ - the same may be returned to her after at the time of dissolution of the marriage in the Court. She further emphatically stated if her husband treats the letter addressed by him as divorced and fails to take recourse to the Court then she may come to his house and commit suicide. Thereafter she received a notice addressed by the Lawyer dated 4.7.1989 which is at Exh. 30, wherein she was called upon to come to matrimonial house within 8 days with the undertaking that she will not use abusive language and she will not quarrel and she will not commit suicide and thereafter the husband has filed the aforesaid petition. According to her the real reason as to why the respondent -husband has filed the petition of divorce was that the wife had filed an application for maintenance on 19.3.1990 and therefore at that point of time the respondent thought of filing the petition for divorce. In fact according to the wife at no point of time the respondent -husband and his family members were interested in mis matrimonial relationship and all the family members were in fact instigating the respondent to take divorce.