Petition no

Presented on

Registerd on

Decided on

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, PUNE

(Presided over by Hrishikesh P. Nardele)

Petition no.A-04/2022

Mr. Swaraj

Dist. Pune ………. Petitioner

-versus-

Mrs. Hindavi

Dist. Pune ………….. Respondent

Petition under section 13(1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce

Mr. Manuel justin, Advocate , for petitioner

Miss. Deepika gaikwad, Advocate, for respondent

JUDGEMENT

(Delivered on this 19th day of April 2022)

The husband has approached this court against his wife for decree of divorce on the grounds of
cruelty and desertion.

1- The factual matrix on which the petition is based is as under :-

Petitioner husband married with respondent wife on 1st April of 2019 at Pune according to rites and
rituals of hindu religion. Both are working in corporate company .After marriage, petitioner husband
and respondent wife both started living in pune city at matrimonial home, dist. Pune. Petitioner and
respondent are well verse in their work and profile. Two years of the marriage are completed.
parents of swaraj are asking for grandchild. Petitioner asked respondent to have a break for a couple
of years to have a child. He want to make a family as there was a wish for child by his parents.
Petitioner wants advance his descent through his respondent wife. He wants to create, upbring and
contribute a good and cultured generation in the society. Respondent wife refused to petitioner.
Due to this sparks occurred in their relations. Whenever petitioner asked/talked about planning for
child respondent wife refused. Due to such acts, respondent caused mental agony. She left the home
without informing husband. She started living separately away from matrimonial home for more
than one year. Petitioner husband was therefore constrained to file petition for divorce on the
grounds of desertion and cruelty. He prayed that his marriage with respondent wife be dissolved by
decree of divorce.

2. Respondent wife was served. She appeared before the court and filed statement. Respondent
stated that she was continuously asked to plan for child and was not treated properly by her in-
laws. She was not ready to leave her job as asked by the petitioner husband. However, she denied
all averments regarding cruelty and desertion. She made an verbal statement that she was abused
and harassed by the petitioner and his family. She never denied for child but she refused to leave
the job.

3. my learned predecessor framed issues vide (exhibit no. 4).

The issues thereon are as under:-

Sr. No Issues
1. Whether in marriage a man has right to child or not?
2. Is it wrong to ask your partner for procreation of child in order to
increase your descent?
3. Refusing cohabitation by wife, does it not amount to cruelty?
4. Is the respondent guilty of cruelty and desertion as alleged?
5. Is the petitioner entitled for the decree of divorce?

4. Advocate for petitioner husband submitted that, Hindavi have been examined. In their
evidence, they have deposed as to how cruelty was committed by respondent wife on petitioner by
refusing to plan for child. from their oral statement they have stated respondent wife deserted
swaraj. Even Hindavi (respondent) has admitted in her cross examination that she was living
separate from January 2021, since there is no husband and wife relation between him and hindavi.
Thus, according to advocate for petitioner husband, the petition deserves to be decreed on grounds
of cruelty and desertion.

5. As against this, Advocate for respondent wife submitted that, swaraj and hindavi have been
examined. In cross examination swaraj has admitted that hindavi always refused to leave her job, as
she want to make carrier and well settled. hindavi stated that there was physiological harassment by
petitioner mother and petitioner.so as to these she left the matrimonial home and started living at
parental home.

6. before I enter in to zone appreciation of evidence, let me in short, deal with nature of evidence
made available on record by the parties.

7. oral evidence led by petitioner is as under:-

Sr. No Name of witness Type of evidence Exhibit No.

1 Swaraj Oral(petitioner
husband)
8.No documentary evidence is led by the petitioner.

9. oral evidence led by respondent wife is as under:-

Sr. No. Name of witness Type of evidence Exhibit No

1 Hindavi Oral(respondent wife)

10. no documentary evidence is led by respondent wife.

REASONS

11. Relationship between petitioner husband and respondent wife has not been disputed, and there
is no possibility of restitution of the couple.

As to issue no.1

12. marriage means according to harton and hunt:_ marriage is the approved social pattern
whereby two person establish a family or marriage is a ritual enjoined the husband to regard his wife
as a god given gift.

In marriage both husband and wife has equal rights to right of child,as both consent is needed to
plan for child.no one can force any of one for child.

As to issue no.2

13. it is not wrong to ask any one of the partner for procreation of child but there should be consent
of both. without ones consent if you force anyone it is a crime. Procreation of child it need a time
where a women have to take proper care and without its consent it is done it is wrong and amount
to cruelty.

As to issue no .3

14. Hon’ble supreme court in Samar gosh Vs. Jaya gosh has explained regard to refuse to child lead
to cruelty. but in these case the respondent is not refusing for child, she is refusing to leave her
job.as it is her crucial period of work to settle properly in life.

Hon’ble high court in v Vs. n explained that wife refusal to quit her job or take transfer to husband
city, even if promised before marriage, would not amount to cruelty on part of wife.here, she
refused to job and due to harassment by petitioner she left the matrimonial house.

As to issue no.4

15. In 24 american jurispurdance 2d,the term “mental cruelty” defined as under:

“Mental cruelty” as a course of unprovoked conducts towards one’s spouse which causes
embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish so as to render the spouse life miserable and unendurable.
Here petitioner doesn’t proved such mental agony which causes spouse life unendurable.

Hon’ble high court in V Vs. N explained that wife refusal to quit job does not amount to cruelty.

In hindu marriage act 1955,

“desertion “ means other party has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than
two years immediately preceding the presentation of petition.

Here in these case, wife started living separated from one year due to harassment and abuse by
petitioner.

Here both the grounds of decree of divorce are not fulfilled.

-ORDER-

1.Petition is dismissed.

2.marriage between swaraj and hindavi is not dissolved.

3.grounds of decree of divorce are not proper and unfulfilled.

Hrishikesh pravin Nardele

(Hrishikesh p Nardele)

Judge,

Family court, Pune

Dated :

I affirm that th contents of the order/Judgment is same as per original.

Name of court: Judge,Family court,Pune

Judge: Hrishikesh P. Nardele

Sign Date: