DEVRAM BILVE Vs. INDUMATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by the husband, who was non-applicant in the Trial Court, against his wife, who was applicant in the Trial Court against the judgment and decree dated 18. 11. 1993 passed by the learned Single Judge in F. A. No. 113/92 (Smt. Indumati Bilve v. Dewaram Bilve), arising out of the judgment and decree dated 1. 5. 1992 passed by the Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore, in Special Marriage Case No. 411/91, whereby the applicant's (respondent herein) application for restitution of conjugal rights filed by her under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') was rejected and the non-applicant's (appellant here in) counter claim for divorce under Section 27 (1) (d) read with Section 35 of the Act, was allowed.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, compass are mentioned herein below. Parties to the litigation were married on 2. 11. 1982 before the Marriage Officer i. e. the Additional Collector, Khargone. They lived as husband and wife together for sometime. Wife (applicant) was already working as a Teacher. At that time the husband was not appointed in Government service but he subsequently got his appointment a Naib Tehsildar on 13. 12. 1982 and was posted at Biora. According to her averments made in the petition the parties lived together as husband and wife upto 27. 12. 1984 even though they were posted at different places. She has averred that on 27. 12. 1984 she was turned out from her matrimonial home by her husband. After she was turned out, she had made complaints to the police and other various superior officials of her husband. After exchange of notices between the parties, as nothing fruitful materialised, she filed a petition claiming restitution of conjugal rights in the Indore Court on 19. 4. 85.

(3.) THE appellant (herein) was noticed. He appeared and filed his written statement. He also made a counter claim and claimed a decree of divorce on the ground that his wife had been guilty of committing acts of cruelty on him inasmuch as that she had been repeatedly sending complaints to his superior officers making certain false and baseless averments. On account of this he was subjected to several enquiries and has undergone severe staress and strain. According to him this amounts to committing of cruelty by wife on him, entitled him for a decree of divorce as mentioned above.