MANOHAR RAMCHANDRA JADHAV Vs. SANGITA MANOHAR JADHAV
LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-156
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on March 21,2018

Manohar Ramchandra Jadhav Appellant
VERSUS
Sangita Manohar Jadhav Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.S.SHINDE,J. - (1.) By this Family Court Appeal, the Appellant - husband challenges the Judgment and order dated 18th September, 2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.A-351 of 2008 thereby dismissing the Petition filed by the Appellant for dissolution of marriage and decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery.
(2.) The case of the Appellant as disclosed in the petition filed by him for a decree of divorce, in brief, can be stated as under: A) The Appellant is a professor. The marriage between Appellant-husband and Respondent No.1-wife was solemnized on 4th June, 1990 as per "Boudha" rites, at Aurangabad. She some how cohabited with husband for about 4 to 5 years. They are having two daughters, namely, Aishwarya aged 17 years and Mansi aged about 7 years. Both the daughters are taking education and are presently residing with Respondent No.1-wife. Previously all were residing in the joint family of the Appellant. B) Appellant-husband is the only earning hand in the family, so his parents, three brothers and a sister were also depending upon him. Respondent No.1-wife did not like to cohabit in the joint family. She was insisting the Appellant to reside separately from joint family and on that count she was raising quarrels with Appellant i.e. husband. She stopped cooking food, and started giving trouble to his parents and brothers. Parents of Respondent No.1-wife were also quarreling with Appellant-husband, on her tutoring. Respondent No.1-wife used to give abuses in loud voice to the Appellant and his parents and on some occasions even by standing in the lane, outside the house. C) The Appellant had made known to the parents and other relatives of Respondent No.1- wife about her misbehaviour. However, instead of telling Respondent No.1 not to misbehave, they extended threat to Appellant that, they will initiate proceedings against him for ill-treatment on account of dowry before an appropriate forum. D) Since August, 2000, they have no physical contacts with each other. Many times Appellant had tried to have physical contacts with Respondent No.1, but she avoided saying that, doctor has advised her to abstain from sexual relations. On insistence, she used to say that, she will commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her person or attempt to break her head. Once she had caused injury to herself by a razor blade. E) The second daughter Mansi is born on 23rd February, 2001. As a matter of fact, Appellant and Respondent No.1 had no physical contacts and sexual relations for seven months. However, Mansi was born after said seven months. On 19th November, 2008 Appellant had learnt from Respondent No.1-wife that Mansi is not born to her from him, but from some one else. Therefore, it is alleged that second daughter Mansi is born to Respondent No.1-wife from her extra marital relationship. F) On 5th March, 2003 Respondent No.1-wife raised quarrels with the Appellant and went with her mother thereby leaving the house of the Appellant. When the Appellant tried to bring her back for cohabitation, she had flatly refused to come back. Ultimately, the Appellant had filed a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court bearing Petition No.A-170 of 2003. After an efforts made by the Appellant and through process of conciliation, Respondent No.1 came back for cohabitation, and accordingly the said matter/proceedings were closed. G) Respondent No.1 again started misbehaving with the Appellant. After reunion when Appellant tried to have sexual contact with her, she asked him to wait for 3-4 months, as her mental condition was not good. Whenever the Appellant tried to have sexual contact with her, every time there were quarrels between the couple.Respondent No.1-wife started talking to some one in low voice on mobile phone by hiding herself in W.C., bathroom, at odd time during night hours. After the marriage, Respondent No.1- wife insisted and compelled the Appellant to transfer the residential house in her name. Now she was saying that, the house belongs to her, and at any time, she will drive the Appellant out of the said house. H) Respondent No.1-wife has tendency to purchase unwanted and costly items required in the house. She always used to ask, for money from the Appellant. She used to demand amount from Appellant, on different counts, and used to give said amount to her parents. With an intention that, her extra marital relations should not be disclosed, Respondent No.1-wife had made false allegations of extra marital relationship of the Appellant. I) On 20th June, 2008, at about 10.00 p.m. Respondent No.1-wife insisted for going to Goa, and Appellant immediately became ready for it. Next day when they went up to Nipani, it was 12.00 in the midnight. However, there was puncture to tyre and till the tyre was replaced, it was 1.30 a.m., still Respondent No.1-wife insisted that they should continue to travel in the night itself. Appellant has alleged that during the journey from Aurangabad to Goa, the behaviour of Respondent No.1-wife was suspicious, and she was all the while talking with some one else on her mobile phone in low tone. So, suspecting some foul-play, the Appellant immediately returned back to Aurangabad. On 19th November, 2008 Respondent No.1-wife started quarreling, giving abuses to brother of Appellant, and said that her Goa trip became unsuccessful otherwise the Appellant would not have seen the day of life, and that her plan did not materialize. She also stated that, she does not like the Appellant, and she like some one else, from whom she had begotten the daughter i.e. Mansi. J) On 30th October, 2008 Respondent No.1- wife insisted for purchasing a gold chain and on that count there was quarrel between the couple. Thereafter also she again quarreled with him and asked him to go away from his house. So, the Appellant left his own house and went to reside at the house of his brother and till now he resides with his brother. K) Blood group of Appellant and Respondent No.1-wife is "A" positive. On the other hand, the blood group of his daughter Mansi is "A" negative. Scientifically this is not possible. It is the allegation of Appellant that Mansi must not be his daughter and she must have been born to Respondent No.1 from some one else than him. L) By way of amendment to the Petition, the Appellant has contended that Respondent No.1 had performed second illegal marriage with Respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is living in adultery with Respondent No.2 and they are having illicit relations with each other. It is alleged by the Appellant that he had received photographs of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in marital posture, as husband and wife. Appellant believes that second daughter Mansi is born to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from their illicit relationship. So on all these grounds, Appellant has claimed divorce from Respondent No.1.
(3.) Respondent No.1-wife has filed written statement in the Petition and denied all the allegations levelled by the Appellant-husband against her. She has denied the allegations of ill-treatment and cruelty. The submissions of Respondent No.1-wife can be stated, briefly, as under: I) It is contended that still Respondent No.1- wife resides with the Appellant, but he himself has left her company and residing separately without any cause. It is contended that when she was residing in the joint family, she used to do all household work, but the Appellant and his relatives were not treating her well because they wanted to marry him with his maternal uncle's daughter. They all were unhappy because she had given birth to a girl child. II) Respondent No.1-wife contended that she never insisted for separate residence. She never called her parents and brothers and raised quarrels with the in-laws. Respondent No.1 is Graduate. As she was feeling that there will be improvement in the behaviour of in-laws, therefore even whens they had abused her, she did not give them replies and also did not tell about it to her relatives. It is submitted that parents of Respondent No.1 had given respectable treatment to the Appellant he being their son in law. III) Respondent No.1 denied that since August, 2000 she had deprived the Appellant from sexual relations with her. It is submitted that Appellant himself is womanizer. He gets handsome income of Rs.50,000/- per month. Being womanizer, he has no interest in keeping sexual relations with her. Many times Respondent No.1 had requested him for sexual relations, but he had flatly refused for that. It is the information of Respondent No.1 that the Appellant is having love affair with one lady Professor in his college, and therefore he is neglecting Respondent No.1. As Appellant wanted to marry with said Professor lady, he has filed this Petition for divorce by making false allegations against her. IV) It is submitted that daughter Mansi has completed 8 years of age on 23rd February, 2008. All along this period, Appellant has treated her well and celebrated all her birthdays. But since 19th November, 2008, as he wanted to marry with another lady, Appellant has made such wild allegations against her. Appellant had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 19th May, 2003 wherein he had specifically mentioned that, he has two daughters from Respondent No.1. That time he did not suspect about the paternity of Mansi. It is denied that Respondent No.1 herself had said to the Appellant that Mansi is not born to her from Appellant. No Hindu lady will tell to her husband that a child born to her is born from some one else than her own husband. V) On 15th November, 2002, the Appellant and his relatives had assaulted Respondent No.1 and her parental relatives and threatened to kill her and therefore, to save her life she went to her parental house. Thereafter her parents had convinced the Appellant and sent back her for cohabitation on 27th January, 2003. But thereafter also there was no change in the behaviour of the Appellant. On 5th May, 2003 also the Appellant and his relatives had abused and assaulted Respondent No.1 and her mother and had driven her out from the house and therefore she went with her mother. She never refused to cohabit with the Appellant but he had made false allegations about her character. VI) It is admitted that on 18th June, 2003 a compromise was arrived at between the couple in the Petition for restitution of conjugal rights, and she went for cohabitation. But the relatives of the Appellant had assaulted her and on the say of relatives, Appellant ill-treated her. It is denied that the parents of Respondent No.1 were interfering in the marital life of the couple. It is submitted that Appellant had left no interest in Respondent No.1, and he enjoys sexual life outside the marital tie. It is the case of Respondent No.1 that the house wherein they were residing, was constructed by her father by purchasing a plot, and said house has been given to her, she being the only daughter to him. VII) It is submitted that, the Appellant was spending much amount of his earning on said Professor lady, with whom he was having love affair, and therefore there was paucity of funds for daily household needs. So she was often required to ask her father to pay money for household expenses. Many times, her parents had supplied the household grocery and grains even. Regarding the Goa trip, it is submitted that Appellant himself had planned the said trip. All the allegations about the Goa trip are denied. It is contended that she never said that her Goa trip was unsuccessful. VIII) It is contended that, the allegations that Mansi is not the daughter of Appellant are false. Appellant has made false allegations of adultery against Respondent No.1 after nine years of marriage, as he wants to marry with said Professor lady. Only because blood group of Mansi is different from the blood group of Appellant and Respondent No.1, it cannot be said that she is not their daughter. The photographs filed on record are not the photographs of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The said photographs are manipulated one. Respondent No.1 even does not know who is Respondent No.2. Appellant concocted fabricated false evidence to get divorce from her as he wants to marry with that Professor lady with whom he is having love affair. Hence it is prayed that the Petition be dismissed with costs. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.