{"id":2697,"date":"2011-08-25T12:51:04","date_gmt":"2011-08-25T07:21:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/?p=2697"},"modified":"2011-08-25T12:51:04","modified_gmt":"2011-08-25T07:21:04","slug":"66-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/66-2006\/","title":{"rendered":"498a Mental Cruelty – Divorce , Maintenance of child"},"content":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2006<\/p>\n

Ajay Ashok Khedkar …. ….. ….. ….. Appellant.
\nV\/s
\nSou. Laleeta Ajay Khedkar….. …. ….. ….Respondent.<\/p>\n

Mr.Hitesh Vyas, Adv. For the appellant.
\nMr.Sachin S. Pande, Adv. For the respondent.
\nCORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE AND SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.
\nDate:12th April, 2010.
\nORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Deshpande, J.)<\/p>\n

This is family court appeal filed by the unsuccessful husband
\nwhose petition for divorce has been dismissed by the Family Court.
\nThe appellant and the respondent\u2019s marriage was solemnized as per
\nHindu rites and customs at Pune on 8.3.2001. The marriage was
\nan arranged marriage and after the marriage the respondent came
\nto reside with the appellant. The appellant\u2019s mother resides along
\nwith the appellant. The petition for divorce was filed on the
\nground of mental cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.<\/p>\n

2. According to the petitioner on the wedding night itself the
\nrespondent alleged that she was deceived in regard to income of
\nthe appellant. The respondent allegedly stated that the salary of
\nthe appellant as informed to her was much more than what he was
\nactually receiving. It is also alleged that with reference to the
\nnumber of spectacle the respondent taunted the appellant by saying
\nthat she was made to perform marriage with a blind person.
\nTouching those issues the respondent allegedly started quarreling
\nwith the petitioner and insulting the petitioner. It is the case of the
\nappellant that since beginning the behaviour of the respondent was
\narrogant and rude and immediately after the marriage the
\nrespondent was insisting that the petitioner should stay separately
\nfrom his mother in one of the two flats owned by the appellant\u2019s
\nfamily situated at Raviwar Peth, Pune. According to the appellant
\nhe tried to convince the respondent that his mother is old and there
\nis no one else to look after her and hence refused to stay separately.
\nIt is also the case of the appellant that the respondent gave threats
\nthat she would commit suicide if the appellant fails to reside
\nseparately. The respondent also denied conjugal rights to the
\nappellant so as to coerce him to stay separate from his mother. On
\nthe above referred allegations touching mental agony and torture
\ndivorce petition was filed.
\n3. Sometime in December 2002 the respondent went to the
\nhouse of her parents for delivery. She delivered a girl child on
\n26.2.03. Despite passage of enough time the respondent did not
\njoin the company of the appellant. According to the appellant
\nbecause of the insistence on the part of respondent to stay
\nseparately the marital life was disturbed and peace and harmony
\nwas lost.
\nOn 3.5.03 the father of the respondent brought the
\nrespondent to the house of the appellant but without meeting the
\nappellant or his mother respondent’s father went away. On 6.5.03
\nthe respondent called her parents and brother at the house of the
\nappellant. The near relations of the respondent quarreled with the
\npetitioner and his mother and after creating a scene threatened the
\nappellant that they would implicate the appellant and members of
\nhis family in false criminal cases. So threatening the appellant,
\nfather and brother of the respondent took her away along with
\nthem. While leaving the appellant\u2019s residence they said that only if
\nhe resides separately the respondent will be sent back. The
\nappellant immediately sent a notice on 9.5.03 asking the
\nrespondent to join the company and cohabit with the appellant but
\ninstead of joining the company of the appellant the respondent
\ninitiated criminal case under section 498A of IPC not only against
\nthe appellant and his mother but three other near relations who
\nwere staying separately including the uncle, aunt and husband of
\nthe aunt. All the persons accused of having committed the offence
\nunder section 498A of IPC were arrested by the police and they
\nwere detained in custody. This is the main circumstance which is
\nrelied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that
\nlodging of false case which resulted in arrest and detention of
\nfamily members of the appellant is singularly sufficient enough to
\nhold that the respondent is guilty of causing mental cruelty and
\nagony to the appellant and thus pressed for grant of decree of
\ndivorce. According to the learned counsel for the appellant arrest
\nand detention of the family members and near relations of the
\nappellant in false case has caused him utmost mental torture.
\nDuring pendnecy of divorce petition the said criminal case came to
\nbe decided by a judgment dated 13.5.05 by Judicial Magistrate,
\nFirst Class, Pune acquitting the appellant and all his family
\nmembers from the charge under section 498A of IPC.
\n4. Perusal of the judgment clearly reveals that the prosecution
\nutterly failed to prove the case put forth by the complainant. The
\nJudicial Magistrate has recorded categoric finding that the
\ncomplainant\u2019s own testimony falsifies the prosecution case that the
\ncomplainant was treated cruely and was harassed by the accused
\npersons with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet their
\nunlawful demand of Rs.50,000\/.
\nThe Magistrate has totally
\ndisbelieved the version of the complainant\/wife and has acquitted
\nthe accused persons. On a careful reading of the judgment
\nrendered in the case of prosecution under section 498A of IPC one
\nthing is crystal clear and it can be safely assumed that the wife had
\nfiled a false case not only against her husband and motherinlaw
\nbut had unnecessarily roped in other near relations. It is obvious
\nthat on account of arrest and detention of the husband and his
\nfamily members respondent has treated the appellant with utmost
\nmental cruelty and the appellant has suffered agony. It will not be
\nout of place to mention that the complaint filed by the wife was
\ncalculatedly designed in as much as it was a sort of counter blast to
\nthe divorce petition filed by the husband. The appellant had filed
\ndivorce petition on 16.6.03 whereas the complaint was lodged by
\nthe respondentwife
\non 11.7.03.
\n5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
\nand his family members including ladies who did not stay along
\nwith the appellant were arrested and detained causing utmost
\nhumiliation and embarrassment and agony to the appellant. This
\nsolitary incidence would itself constitute mental cruelty even if
\nother circumstances are not taken into account and thus the trial
\ncourt has erred in law in dismissing the divorce petition. Para 29 of
\nthe judgment of family court deals with this aspect of the matter by
\nobserving :
\n\u201cThere can not be absolutely two opinions regarding
\nlegal proposition that if the wife filed false criminal cases
\nagainst the husband, her conduct does amount to causing
\nmental cruelty and torture to him, therefore, the husband
\nbecomes entitled for a decree of divorce. The necessary
\ncondition for constituting such legal cruelty is that the wife
\nhas indulged into making false and reckless allegation by
\nfiling false complaint to the police. A singular complaint filed
\nby wife under section 498A of IPC against the husband and
\nhis family members can not indicate the tendency of wife to
\nindulge into making such false allegation.\u201d
\nWe fail to understand the logic behind the reasoning adopted by
\nthe family court to hold that a singular complaint of this nature
\nunder section 498A of IPC resulting in arrest and detention of the
\nfamily members and relatives thereby causing utmost
\nembarrassment, humiliation and suffering does not constitute
\nmental cruelty. It is illogical that more than one complaint are
\nnecessary to be filed to constitute mental cruelty. In our view,
\nembarrassment, humiliation and suffering that is caused on account
\nof arrest and detention of appellant and his family members and
\nrelatives in a false case does constitute mental cruelty to enable the
\nhusband to seek decree of divorce on this sole ground. In our
\nconsidered opinion, the approach of the family court is wholly
\nperverse and the reasoning cannot be sustained in law. In regard to
\nother circumstances the family court has observed :
\n\u201cAt the most one can infer that this conduct of the
\nrespondent may have caused some disharmony between the
\ncouple but in no way it can be said that it was sufficient to
\nconstitute a mental cruelty to petitioner or his mother.\u201d
\nWithout deliberating on all the circumstances in detail we are of
\nthe clear view that cumulative effect of the behaviour and conduct
\nof the respondent is good enough to draw an inference that
\nrespondent has caused utmost mental pain and suffering which
\nconstitute mental cruelty to the appellant and hence the appellant
\nis entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
\n6. This brings us to the consideration of question of granting
\nmaintenance to the girl child who is aged about 8 years. The
\nfamily court in exercise of powers under section 24 had granted
\ninterim maintenance of Rs.700\/p.
\nm. whereas this Court by an
\ninterim order has raised it to Rs.1000\/p.
\nm. The appellant so also
\nthe respondent are both gainfully employed. They are earning in
\nthe range of Rs.5000 to 7000 per month each. The child is in
\ncustody of the respondentmother.
\nLearned counsel for the
\nappellant on instructions from his client who is present in the court
\nsubmitted that the appellant would pay a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs
\ntowards permanent alimony for the maintenance of child. Having
\nfound the said amount insufficient we persuaded the counsel for
\nthe appellant to raise the amount so that monthly interest on the
\nsaid amount works out in the range of Rs.2000 per month. The
\nmother of the appellant has come forward to contribute further
\nsum of Rs.1.5 lacs towards maintenance of the child. In our view if
\nthe appellant pays sum of Rs.3 lacs by way of permanent alimony
\nfor the maintenance of child the said amount if kept in fixed
\ndeposit can fetch interest of Rs.2000\/per month and the same
\ncould be utilized by the respondent for upbringing of the daughter.
\nIn the result we pass the following order:
\n(i) The marriage of the appellant and respondent stands dissolved by a decree of divorce under section 13(1)(ia);
\n(ii) The appellant shall pay sum of Rs.3 lacs by way of permanent alimony for the maintenance of the girl child. The said amount of Rs.3 lacs shall be invested in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank and the respondent is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon quarterly. The amount of Rs.3 lacs shall be invested in the fixed deposit within two months from today in the name of the minor child and the respondent would be shown as her guardian;
\n(iii) The said sum of Rs.3 lacs shall be kept invested in fixed deposit till the child attains majority.
\n(iv) Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n

At this stage the learned counsel for the respondent seeks stay of this order. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances we do not find any reason to stay the impugned order. Hence the prayer is rejected.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2006 Ajay Ashok Khedkar …. ….. ….. …..…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_customify_content_layout":"","_customify_sidebar":"","_customify_page_header_display":"","_customify_disable_header":"","_customify_disable_header_top":"","_customify_disable_header_main":"","_customify_disable_header_bottom":"","_customify_disable_page_title":"","_customify_disable_content_vertical_padding":"","_customify_disable_footer_top":"","_customify_disable_footer_main":"","_customify_disable_footer_bottom":"","_customify_breadcrumb_display":"","_customify_header_transparent_display":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[47,16015,13479,16012,49,92,16011,16017,751,16016,16013,16014,3523,13480],"class_list":["post-2697","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-498a","tag-498a-mental-cruelty","tag-a-p-deshpande","tag-ajay-ashok-khedkar","tag-divorce","tag-hindu-marriage-act","tag-laleeta-ajay-khedkar","tag-maintenance-of-child","tag-mental-cruelty","tag-mental-cruelty-divorce","tag-mr-hitesh-vyas","tag-mr-sachin-s-pande","tag-section-131ia","tag-smt-r-p-sondurbaldota"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2697","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2697"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2697\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}