SUYOG VASUDEO DAHIWADKAR Vs. MOHINI SUYOG DAHIWADKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed under section 19 of the Family Courts act, 1984 arises from the judgment and order dated 12/4/2004 rendered by the Family Court at Pune thereby dismissing Petition No. A-501 of 2001 filed by the appellant-husband for seeking divorce under section 13 (1) (ia)of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act) and that is on the ground of cruelty. Praying for maintenance under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short the Maintenance Act ).

(2.) THE parties were married on 19/12/1997 at Pune as per the Hindu religion rites and customs. They stayed together and cohabited till the end of April, 2001. As per the husband, the wife was of quarrelsome nature and left the matrimonial home on or about 24/4/2001 and on 13/7/2001 she came back with some of her relations. Between 9. 30 p. m. to 11 p. m. on the same day, there was discussion between the two families and in the midnight, wife packed her bags of all her belongings and left the matrimonial home and before doing so and in fact before the compromise meeting commenced, she had gone to the Police Station and filed a complaint (Exh. 52) for an offence punishable under section 498-A of I. P. C. against the appellant and his family members, including his sister and sister's husband. The police had called the appellant to the police station and he gave his explanation (Exh. 53 ). On 19/7/2001, he approached the Family court and filed Petition No. A-501 of 2001 for seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

(3.) THE wife filed her written statement at exh. 69 and opposed the petition filed by the husband. She denied all the allegations made against her about her behaviour and that she had on her own left the matrimonial home. She alleged that within a short period after the marriage, she was being ill-treated, physically assaulted and harassed by the husband and his family members and that the appellant was trying to take benefit of his own wrongs by seeking a divorce on the ground of cruelty. She also alleged that on 13/7/2001 when she tried to enter her matrimonial home, she was prevented from doing so by the appellant's elder brother - Vasu who had advised her to come back around 9 p. m. for discussion. She further alleged that the meeting ended inconclusive and next meeting date was to be fixed and communicated by the appellant and she did not hear anything further. On 19/7/2001 she had issued a legal notice through an Advocate and had also filed an application under section 125 of Cri. P. C. claiming maintenance.