RAJIV DINESH GADKARI Vs. NILANGI RAJIV GADKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS resent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2009, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No. 6 at Bandra, Mumbai, by which the learned trial Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein and the marriage between the appellant and the respondenthusband has been dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(2.) THE respondentwife preferred Petition No. A693 of 2004 for a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The marriage of the appellanthusband and the respondentwife was solemnized on 26th June, 2002 at Nasik as per Hindu Vedic Rites. After the marriage, the respondent went to u. S. A. along with the appellant. It is the case of the respondent that after reaching U. S. , the appellant insisted the respondent that the respondent should change her life style and follow the American life style. He insisted her to cut her hair and compelled her to eat beef and pork and also compelled her to prepare it at home and if she refused, he used to shout at her. He showed no respect for God and Hindu deities and did not give money to her to buy Indian food. The appellant was even compelled her to have alcohol and he always criticized and scolded her as Indian and also forced her to wear short and vulgar clothes which she disliked and was compelled her to mix with boys. It is also the case of the appellant that even after the arrival of appellant's mother at u. S. , there was no change in the situation and she was also insisting her to change her life style as expected by the appellant. It is the case of the respondent that her husband and her motherinlaw were calling her conservative and backward and ultimately when she got an opportunity to come back to India for the purpose of appearing in M. A. Examination, she came back to India on 5th February, 2003, she returned to India. It is her case that since she had come to India for examination, she did not bring her jewellery articles and valuables along with her. It is also the case of the respondent that when she wrote a letter to the appellant expressing her desire to dissolve the marriage and seeking his consent, the appellant refused and made false allegations including stealing of his valuables and was blaming the respondent. It is also her case that she learnt that the appellant was medically unfit on the basis of ECG scan of his brain and this fact was concealed from her at the time of marriage. It is also her case that lastly she had received a letter from the appellant seeking divorce by consent but still he continued to harass her by uploading the vulgar photographs, text image on the website and had accordingly defamed her for which she filed a defamation complaint under cyber Crime and the offence is already registered against the appellant. The respondent wife accordingly filed the said petition on the aforesaid grounds. She also prayed for return of articles and prayed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75,000/' per month.

(3.) THE appellant, who was the respondent before the trial Court, filed written statement at Exh. 7 and denied the allegations made in the petition. It is the case of the appellant in his written statement that the respondent had entered into marriage with the appellant with an intention to enjoy life and privileges in America and at the cost of the appellant she enjoyed American life for seven months and came back to India abruptly. It is his case in the written statement that the respondent and her family never showed any interest or inclination towards finding a feasible solution to save the marriage or solve her socalled imaginary problems. It is the case of the appellant that he is well educated, hard working and soft spoken and a humble person and believe in individual freedom and mutual respect to each other. It is his case that the respondent used to consume wines and that she was not doing any household work. It is also the case of the appellant that at the time of coming to India, she had taken all her jewelleries with her. On these and such other grounds, the petition was resisted by the appellant.