Bombay High Court: In the present appeal, the appellant-wife challenged the judgment passed by the Family Court on 28-11-2019, whereby her petition for the restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and the counterclaim of the respondent-husband for divorce was allowed and the divorce was granted. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale*, JJ., opined that the wife’s behaviour with his husband’s employees, humiliating him in front of his friends, refusing sexual relations, and accusing him of extra-marital affairs were all instances of ‘cruelty’ that her husband was subjected to. The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the judgment passed by the Family Court was well-reasoned because the wife subjected her husband to cruelty and had deserted him.
Background:
The parties got married on 12-12-2013 but owing to matrimonial discord, they separated on 14-12-2014. A petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) which was later withdrawn by the wife, followed by a police complaint made by her against the husband and his family members. Thereafter, the wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HMA and the husband in his written statement-cum-counterclaim filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The said petition was decreed in husband’s favour. The wife had also made an application seeking interim maintenance, but it was rejected, and no further claim for permanent alimony and maintenance was raised by her before the Family Court.
The wife alleged that her in-laws humiliated her, prohibited her from working, and compelled her to do household chores. Her husband even told her that she should not stay with him, and it was conveyed to her family that the husband wanted a divorce. Her jewellery comprising her stridhan was also taken away from her. After taking back her consent for a mutual divorce, when she came back to her matrimonial home, her parents-in-law and sister-in-law abused her and treated her with cruelty which caused her father to suffer a heart-attack, due to which he was hospitalized.
She stated that she had tremendous love and affection for her husband and desired to cohabit with him. However, the husband denied all her allegations and sought divorce, submitting that she often told him that marrying him was the biggest failure of her life and used to leave home in the morning and return late. She even refused to entertain his friends and avoided going out with them. He had a business, and the wife used to barge in his office and behave rudely with him and his employees. The husband stated that the wife had refused physical relations 3-4 months after their marriage. She also fought with him after accusing him of having extra-marital affairs and started demanding divorce and eventually left the house. Thus, the husband alleged cruelty and desertion by the wife and thus, the Family Court, upon consideration, granted him divorce.
Analysis and Decision:
The Family Court had refuted the wife’s allegation that she was made to do all the housework because, in her evidence, she had admitted that there were many servants employed in the house. Regarding her seeking restitution of conjugal rights, she was required to demonstrate withdrawal by the husband from her society without reasonable excuse, but there was no averment either in her petition or the evidence suggesting such withdrawal. Thus, the Family Court had genuine doubts as to her bona fide desire to resume cohabitation. This Court, agreeing with the views of the Family Court, observed that her claims of the husband demanding divorce from her during their cohabitation were not substantiated by cogent evidence.
The Court also rejected her contention that she was forced to file a consent petition for divorce because she was personally present in the Court at the time of filing the consent petition, and she was accompanied by her mother and was represented by an advocate. The Court further observed that the fact that she made the police complaint against the husband and his family members showed an inclination to harass the husband after the mutual consent proceedings failed.
The wife did not examine any witness to corroborate her statements, but the husband had narrated the various incidents of cruelty inflicted upon him by her. The allegations put forward by the husband in the Family Court were not contradicted by him in his cross-examination by the wife’s counsel, and his unchallenged and unrebutted testimony also demonstrated attempts made by him to save their marriage. The Court held that the Family Court correctly inferred that the wife was not seriously interested in reconciliation, and there was no evidence indicating withdrawal of the husband from her society without reasonable cause.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni, (2023) 16 SCC 615, wherein it was observed that what was cruelty in one case might not be in another. The Court thus opined that in the present case, the conduct of the wife, as seen from the evidence on record, could be construed as ‘cruelty’ against the husband. Her behaviour with his employees, humiliating him in front of his friends, refusing sexual relations, and accusing him of extra-marital affairs were all instances of ‘cruelty’ that he was subjected to. The Court also noted that the husband attempted to work on their relationship by moving out of his family home to a rented flat and invited the wife to live there, but she did not show up. The Court observed that there was no infirmity in the Family Court’s judgment as it was well reasoned and based on the correctly appreciated evidence and consequently dismissed the appeal.
In the present appeal, the wife also prayed for maintenance of Rs 1 lakh for the first time, but the Court did not find any issue framed or evidence led in that behalf at the earlier stages and thus, rejected the said prayer directing her to agitate her claim of permanent alimony and maintenance in an appropriate forum.
[X v. Y, Family Court Appeal No. 53 of 2021, decided on 17-7-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Usha Tanna (Through VC) with Hemal Ganatra and Rushda Patel.
For the Respondent: Vikramaditya Deshmukh, with M.S. Khadilkar, Chinmay Page and Ashutosh Pawar.