SUJATA GOPAL NAGALKAR Vs. GOPAL NARAYANRAO NAGALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal impugned, judgment and order date 28. 5 93 passed by the Family Court at Pune, in P. A No. A-444 of 1992, whereby, the claim of the appellant wite for restitution of conjugal rights was re jected and the counter claim of the Respond ent for divorce was allowed. For the sake of convenience the appellant is hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner".

(2.) THE few facts on the basis of which this petition came to be filed are as under admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent got married on 2nd Decembei 1989 at Pune by Hindu Vedic Rites. According to the petitioner, on 4. 12. 89. She along with the respondent and the member of his family went to Tulzapur to visit a temple. She contends that the mother of respondent snatched her mangalsutra. The petitioner went to the Respondent's house to cohabit with him, however, right from the beginning the respondent was not behaving well with her The respondent kept telling her that he wanted to contest election and he had no desire to marry so early thereafter, the petitioner went to her parent's house on 8. 12. 89 as per the prevalent custom. The respondent never showed any inclination to bring her home. The petitioner, therefore, had to go to the matrimonial home on her own. She has further contended that the respondent and the members of his family continued to behave in the same manner. They continued to taunt her by saying that she had flat feet and that "she had mars in her horoscope" meaning thereby astrologically mars was not happily placed in her horoscope. Owing to that blind faith in superstition, they attributed all the calamities mat befell their family on the petitioner. On 7th March, 1990, the respondent told the petitioner that she should go to her parents' house for about two months. The petitioner showed her reluctance to go to her parents' house. However, the respondent's mother took her to her parent's house by applying force. It is further stated in the petition that the respondent had sent his friend one mr. Tuljaram Kalvankar to the petitioner's parent's house with a message that the respondent would take the petitioner home after about six months. Believing in the assurance given by the respondent, the petitioner waited for a period of about six months However, there was no response from the respondent. The petitioner's mother visited the house of the respondent time and again. However, there was no response. Ultimately, on 16th February, 1992, a meeting of the Samaj Panchayat was arranged and the respondent was requested to remain present However, the respondent did not remain present. A second meeting was held on 18th February, 1992. The respondent again remained absent. The third meeting was held on 8th March, 1992. On that day, though the respondent did not remain present, his father was present. Father complained that in her horoscope position of mars is malafide. On 12th March. 1992 again there was a meeting of the Panchayat. The respondent remained present. He stated that he did not want to maintain the petitioner. However, he was prepared to pay the expenses incurred for the marriage. He brought some ladies belonging to political parties and there was some untoward incident. The members of the petitioner's family were beaten up and in respect of the same the petitioner lodged a complaint at Gani peth Police Station. According to the petitioner, she contacted nari Samata Manch and such other organisations. A letter came to be sent to the respondent. However, the respondent attended the centre and stated that he was prepared to pay back the expenditure incurred by the petitioner's family for the marriage. The petitioner sent a notice on 3. 4. 92. By the said notice the petitioner called upon the respondent to take her back to the matrimonial house. The respondent replied to the said notice denying the Petitioner's case. Broadly, on these facts the petitioner filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) THE respondent filed his written statement and counter-claim. He denied all the contentions of the petitioner. He, however, admitted that a meeting of the Panchayat was in fact held on 16th February, 1992. He also admitted mat the petitioner had lodged a complaint at Gani Peth Police Station which, according to him was false and frivolous. According to him right from the beginning the petitioner used to pick quarrels at home with the members of his family. She used to tell the respondent that she had no desire to cohabit with the respondent and in fact, she did not want to marry him. It is the case of the respondent that he time and again tried to made the petitioner understand. However, the petitioner paid no heed to him. She caused mental cruelty to him on account of which he had to be treated medically. According to him, the petitioner, on her own, without any cause left him and went to her parents' house. Thereafter she has not returned. She has continued to stay with her parent. The respondent stated that he is not at all responsible of the Petitioner's leaving the matrimonial home and the notice sent by her was aimed at causing mental cruelty to the respondent. He further contended that the petitioner married him with a view to extracting money from him and he feared that if she continued to stay with him, he would be mentally destabilized. In these circumstances, be prayed that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent be dissolved on the grounds under Section 13 (la) (lb) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.