SUSHAMA PRAMOD TAKSANDE Vs. PRAMOD RAMAJI TAKSANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before this Court is wife and she challenges judgment dated 6.12.2008 delivered by the District Judge -I, Pandharkawada, affirming, the judgment dated 6.10.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharkawada (Kelapur). The Civil Judge, has in H.M.P. No. 24/2008 presented under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Petition, dissolved marriage between the parties because of consent and the custody of two sons with father Pramod was continued as wife agreed not to seek the custody. It is also recorded that wife waived her right of maintenance. This order was challenged by wife in Regular Civil Appeal No. 68/2008 inter alia contending that her signature on said petition and accompanying affidavits were obtained under false pretext and she was compelled to place her signature upon it. She contended that both the parties were residing together and there was no separation for a period of one year which is a mandatory requirement. The Lower Appellate Court has considered this ground and in paragraph No. 7 found that petition was presented on 4.4.2008, parties were directed to remain present on 6.10.2008 and from pleadings it appeared that both parties were not ready to continue their marital tie. In their affidavits, both state that they were re siding separately from February, 2007 and hence both were residing away from each other for more than one year before the presentation of the section 13-B petition. The Appellate Court also found that the affidavit of wife demonstrated that they were residing separately from one year before filing of the petition. It also noted that Advocate for husband submitted that, wife was residing at house of her brother at Karanji itself and this submission was not "refuted" by appellant i.e. wife. In view of this consideration the appeal came to be dismissed.

(2.) I have heard Advocate Shri Bhuibar, for appellant-Wife and Advocate Shri Anjan De, for respondent-husband in this background.

(3.) On 4.2.2009 following three questions were framed and after hearing the parties, the appeal was closed for orders/judgment.