Friday, August 9, 2013

wife NOT giving her salary NO ground for divorce. GO GO earn yourself, lousy MAN. IF wife asks, her well ..... The one thing I can't understand is how this MAN went on appeal to the Honouorable Hiigh court, not even knowing this basic fact that men are supposed to earn and provide everything when women NEED NOT give one penny to the household .... I'm really surprised at the stupidity of this husband ... I'm ... I'mmm...saddened

wife NOT giving her salary NO ground for divorce. GO GO earn yourself, lousy MAN. IF wife asks, her well ..... The one thing I can't understand is how this MAN went on appeal to the Honouorable Hiigh court, not even knowing this basic fact that men are supposed to earn and provide everything when women NEED NOT give one penny to the household .... I'm really surprised at the stupidity of this husband ... I'm ... I'mmm...saddened 

* wife earning well and maintainng her own bank account
* stupid male / also called husband , when sufffering from financial difficulties asks wife for money 
* the poor wife, ablaa naari, refuses
* the stipid male ...ok..husband does NOT know that the wife NEED not give him her salary 
* husband has other claims etc and looses the case in the family court 
* as if loosing the case at the family court is NOT good enough, he goes on to loose the case at the High court

* I can ONLY say , the MEN in this country NEED an adult literacy program 

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.





Mr.Umesh Manohar Waidande,

Age 37 years, Occu – Unemployed, 
R/at Sankalp Nagar C/A/203, Near Kalwa
Swimming Pool, Kalwa, Thane – 400 605.  .....Appellant


Mrs.Trupti Umesh Waidande,
Age 27 years, Occu – Service, 
R/at C/o Mr.Shrirang Waghmare, 
6A/104, Mangaldeep Society, 
Manisha Nagar, Kalwa, Thane – 400 605.  ..... Respondent

Mr.P.P.Kulkarni, for the appellant. 

Mr.G.N.Salunke with Mr.S,.G.Swami, for the respondent. 



DATE:     10TH APRIL, 2012


1. By way of this appeal, the appellant, who is husband of the respondent­wife,  has  challenged  the judgment  and  order  of  the  Family Court, by which the Family Court, Thane, dismissed the petition filed by the  appellant­husband  being  Marriage  Petition  No.209  of  2006.   The appellant­husband filed the aforesaid Marriage Petition for getting decreessp 2 FCA 151 of 2011 for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.  It is the case of the appellant that his wife used to quarrel with him frequently in the presence of other family members and she was not parting with the salary which she  is  earning  out  of  the  employment,  as  he  was  having  financial difficulties. The aforesaid behaviour of the wife i.e. insulting the husband and not parting salary in his favour, is treated to be a ground for cruelty, for which a Marriage Petition was filed.   The other ground  for divorce which was pressed into service was the ground of desertion.  

2. The learned Judge of the Family Court after considering the evidence on  record, came  to  the conclusion  that  there is  absolutely no justification in dissolving the marriage.  The Family Court negatived both the  points  regarding  cruelty  as  well  as  desertion  and  dismissed  the Marriage Petition  filed by the appellant­husband.   The respondent­wife has filed a counter claim regarding the restitution of conjugal rights.   The said counter claim was allowed and decreed in favour of the respondent­ wife and the Family Court directed the appellant to join the respondent and render conjugal rights to her and also directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.5,000/­ p.m., for the minor son till he resumes cohabitation.   

3. The marriage between the appellant and respondent took place in the year 2001 and out of the said weklock, there is also a minor son who is 9 years  of  age.    In  so  far  as  the  ground  about  cruelty is concerned, it is required to be noted that except stating in the evidence that the respondent­wife used to insult the husband, he has not given any cogent particulars about the nature of cruelty.  In para No.4 of the affidavit in lieu of examination­in­chief, the appellant­husband has stated that at the  time  of  marriage,  it  was  decided  between  both  the  parties  that marriage  expenses will be shared equally.  He further stated that the sister of  the  respondent­wife is  having  quarrelsome nature  and  she does not respect elders.  

5. In  para  No.5,  the  appellant  has  deposed  that  the respondent is a women of independent and selfish nature and was doing the things which she like and decide.   She used to take guidance of her mother who is residing nereby.  He has  further stated  that prior  to  the marriage, the respondent  told her that she would share her salary with him, but after the marriage, she did not share her salary with him.   In para No.6 of the affidavit, the appellant has averred that the respondent used  to pick up quarrels petty  reasons and used  to abuse him in  filthy language  and  she used  to insult him in presence of  relatives.    In  the evidence,  the husband  has  also  stated  that on  all matters,  she used  to consult with  her mother.   He  stated  that  since last  three years  she is residing with her parents and deprived him of his matrimonial rights.  

6. In the cross­examination, he has admitted the fact that the dispute between him and respondent­wife arose on the issue of money 10­ 12 after her delivery.   He admitted that the demand of money was made by him on  two occasions during  the delivery of  the  respondent.   The respondent was having bank account in her single  name and there was no joint account. He further admitted that when for the first time after her delivery, I demanded money from her, the respondent told him that she will discuss  this issue  on  the next  day  as  she is  feeding  the  child  and accordingly,  again  on  the  next  day,  he  went  to  her  parents  house  for discussing the money issue.  The respondent expressed her inability to pay the money to the appellant.   

7. The learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the evidence in proper perspective and found that the appellant has failed to make out any case about the cruelty.  As a matter of fact, the respondent in her evidence stated that so far as ground of desertion is concerned, she has filed  a  counter  claim  regarding  restitution  of  conjugal  rights.   In  her evidence,  she  has  stated  that  the  appellant  is  not  her  back  to  the matrimonial house as he did not want to cohabit with her.  Considering the  evidence  on  record,  the  Family  Court  allowed  the  counter  claim regarding restitution of conjugal rights.    

8. We  have  gone  through  the  judgment  and  order  of  the Family Court  and have  gone  through  the  oral evidence which is madessp available with  the  appeal  proceedings.   It is  required  to  be noted  that simply because wife is earning and did not part with her salary in favour of the husband, can never be treated as a ground for cruelty on the part of the wife to the husband.  It is very distressing that on such a trifle ground, the  appellant  has  deserted  her wife  and is  not  keeping  her  with  him, though  there is  a  child  out  of  the  said  wedlock.   It  has  come in  the evidence  that immediately after  the delivery of  the child,  the appellant demanded money from the wife and as discussed above, when the wife was feeding the child, he was demanding money from her and infact, on the subsequent days, he was demanding money from her.   If any cruelty is to be attributed, in our view, it can be attributed to the appellant­husband and not to the wife.    In the evidence, the appellant has not given any particulars about the insulting behaviour of the wife, except stating that she used to insult in presence of her relatives.   After the marriage, the wife is not executing slavery bond that she will not speak anything.  The wife is entitled to have a voice in the family and she is expected to have her voice by expressing her views.   On absolutely flimsy grounds as stated above, the appellant has tried to get marriage dissolved by getting decree for divorce when out of the said wedlock, there is a child who is minor.  In our view, the Family Court rightly dismissed the marriage petition, as on such a  flimsy and  trifle ground, the solemnized marriage should not be allowed to be dissolved by such act of the appellant­husband.  The real sufferer is the child and the respondent wife is also subjected to suffering as the appellant is not permitting her to come back  to  the matrimonial home.   The Family Court therefore, rightly allowed the counter claim filed by the respondent wife, allowing the restitution of conjugal rights.   

9. Learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  submits  that  the appellant  is  now  residing  in  Norway  and  is  earning  37000  Norway currency.   In spite of the said  fact, he is not looking after his wife and child. It will be open to the respondent wife to try to get the social security number of the appellant­husband, on the basis of which she can point out to the Indian High Commission as well as the Norway Government that the  appellant­husband  is  not  maintaining  the  child  and  wife,  as  it  is informed to the Court that he is not sending any amount of maintenance. On  the  basis  of  social  security  number,  the  concerned  Indian  High Commission at Norway can very well find out the name of the employer of the said appellant, which name can be given to the respondent wife and on  the  basis  of  which,  the  respondent­wife  can  take  out  appropriate proceedings against the appellant and can send a copy of this order to the concerned  employer,  so  that  the  employer  can  deduct  the  amount  of maintenance and send the same to the wife in India at her address, as it is a matter of child protection and the amount in question is required to be spend for the protection of child.  The respondent­wife is free to take out such proceedings in accordance with law and as deemed fit.    

10. In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any substance  in  the  above  Family  Court  Appeal,  which  is  accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

11. In view of the dismissal of the Family Court Appeal No.151 of 2011, the Civil Application No.317 of 2011 does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed.  



@ATMwithDick on twitter or (recent blog so recent cases ) 
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases


Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist