DEEPA PRAKASH PATIL Vs. PRAKASH BANDU PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNFORTUNATE matrimonial dispute between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband gives rise to this Second Appeal. Initially the advocates appearing for the parties made their best endeavour to ensure that the parties settle the dispute amicably. As the efforts made by the learned advocates failed, there was no option but to take recourse to the painful task of resolving matrimonial dispute by a judicial adjudication. Whether a matrimonial dispute can be resolved in its true sense by a process judicial adjudication is an altogether a different aspect. However, the Court has to do its duty by deciding the matrimonial dispute which the parties could not resolve by an amicable settlement. Since the parties are residing separately for a considerably long time, this Court requested the advocates to argue the matter finally. Though the submissions were concluded on 06th February, 2008, the judgment was reserved. One object of not delivering the judgment immediately was to provide one more opportunity to parties to amicably resolve their dispute. However, when the appeal is called out today, I am informed that the parties have not resolved their dispute and therefore I proceed to decide the appeal on merits.

(2.) THE first question which arises in this appeal is as regards the maintainability of the Second Appeal. The said issue will have to be decided in view of the order dated 12th June, 2007 passed by this Court. The second question which needs to be decided is whether there could be a decree passed of divorce on the basis of allegations made in the pleadings by one of the parties to a matrimonial dispute. The third question which arises is what is the effect of amicable settlement which was allegedly arrived at one stage, on the basis of which order was passed by this Court by quashing the prosecution against the husband. The question is whether the decree of divorce passed by the Appellate Court can be sustained.

(3.) IT is alleged that after the aforesaid settlement the respondent-husband and the appellant-wife started staying at the place of employment of the wife at Jejuri, Taluka Purandar, District Pune. It is alleged that conduct of the appellant-wife did not change and there were fights. It is alleged that the appellant-wife started picking up quarrels with the respondent-husband and started insulting the respondent-husband. It is alleged that the appellant-wife demanded that the marriage should be dissolved by a divorce. It is alleged that on 29th September, 2002 there was another incident between the husband and wife. It is alleged that the respondent husband was threatened by appellant-wife. On 29th September, 2002 when the respondent-husband came back from the duty he found the house to be locked and he had to spent a night in a lodge. Till 01st October, 2002 the house remained locked and therefore the respondent-husband had no option but to break open the lock. He found that the appellant-wife had taken away ornaments as well cash amount of Rs.20,000/-. The allegation made in the petition is from 29th September, 2002 the appellant-wife has been residing separately. The cause of action is that the respondent-husband was treated with cruelty by the appellant-wife and the appellant-wife deserted him from 29th September, 2002. There is a written statement filed by the appellant-wife which contains denials. Apart from denials, there are other allegations made regarding the mental state of the respondent-husband and his peculiar nature. The allegation made in the written statement is that in fact the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty. It must be also stated here that the appellant-wife filed a petition being Petition No.165 of 2005 for restitution of conjugal rights.