wife NOT giving her salary NO ground for divorce. GO GO earn yourself, lousy MAN. IF wife asks,..cough..cough.pay 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 Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo .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.
CASE FROM JUDIS DOT NIT DOT IN SITE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.151 OF 2011
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.317 OF 2011
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.151 OF 2011
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.
CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
DATE: 10TH APRIL, 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. ) :
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.
( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )
@ATMwithDick on twitter or
http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (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