Ablaa naari wins Restitution, MALE hubby doesn't take her into house... So she goes on to claim maintenance and residence, when MALE (should I say evil male ??) seeks divorce. Honourable court grants her 25 lakhs with 12% interest since 2001 !!! Honourable court does NOT believe that husband's business is in a loss or that the banks i auctioning his property
***********************************************************
In the interest of Justice the following orders are passed
".............. (i) The husband shall within three months from today provide "suitable" residential accommodation to the wife consisting of not less than one BHK in the nearby vicinity where the matrimonial house is situated or in such other locality "as may be agreed upon by the wife". Further, the said accommodation shall be provided on ownership basis in the name of the wife, and if on lease or leave and licence basis it must be so provided during the lifetime of the wife. In either case, all the outgoings with regard to the accommodation /premises to be provided to the wife, shall be borne by the husband during her lifetime.
(ii) Failure to comply with the direction in clause (i) above within the time as specified, for whatever reasons, the husband shall pay within four months from today, lumpsum amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) in lieu of accommodation, along with58 1603 interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 29th May, 2001 till the entire amount is fully realized.
(iii) Insofar as prayer clause (c) of the original Petition, the husband shall pay to the wife within three months from today a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 29th May, 2001 till the date of its realization, which amount shall be invested by the wife in her name in appropriate Fixed Deposit Scheme in a bank of her choice, towards permanent maintenance amount under Section 18 of HAMA. The wife would be free to avail of the interest earned on the said investment during her life time.
.............."
******************************disclaimer**********************************
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 NIC DOT IN SITE
******************************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2003
Sanjeev Vyankatesh Ranade,
Age 41 years, Occ:-Business,
Residing at 17/A/6, Vijay Bunglow,
Near Ashwamedh Hall, Erandwana,
Karve Road, Pune- 411 004. ...Appellant
Versus
Meghna Sanjeev Ranade,
Age 39 years, Occ:Housewife,
Residing at C/o.M.P.Sidhya (M.B.B.S.),
Survey No.10/3-A/1,
Near Kailash Jeevan Company,
Dhayari, Pune – 411 041. ...Respondent
WITH
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2003
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2004
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.79 OF 2007
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.87 OF 2007
Meghana Sanjeev Ranade,
Age 39 years, Occ:Housewife,
R/o. C/o.M.P.Sidhya (M.B.B.S.),
Survey No.10/3-A/1,
Near Kailash Jeevan Company,
Dhayari, Pune – 411 004. ...Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Vyankatesh Ranade
Age 41 years, Occ:-Business,
Residing at 17/A/6, Vijay Bunglow,
Near Ashwamedh Hall, Erandwana,
Karve Road, Pune- 411 004. ...Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.262 OF 2008
IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2006
IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.85 OF 2003
Meghna Sanjeev Ranade ...Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Venkatesh Ranade ...Respondent
And
Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. ...Applicant
***************
Mr. A.V. Anturkar for Sanjeev Ranade-husband.
Mr. P.R Arjunwadkar for Meghna Ranade-wife.
Mr. R.V. Govilkar for the Applicant in Civil Application No. 262 of2008.
***************
CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
R.Y. GANOO, JJ.
RESERVED ON: JUNE 14, 2011
DELIVERED ON: JULY 21, 2011
JUDGMENT (Per A.M. Khanwilkar, J.):-
1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of both the appeals together. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the parties as 'husband' and 'wife'. 3 1603
2. Family Court Appeal No. 16 of 2003 has been filed by the husband against the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Family Court No. 3, Pune, dated 13th December, 2002, dismissing the petition filed by him for divorce under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'HMA', for the sake of brevity), being Petition A-No. 28 of 2000. The companion Family Court Appeal No. 85 of 2003, has been filed by the wife against the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pune, dated 13th December, 2002 for enhancement of maintenance amount under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'HAMA', for the sake of brevity), higher than the maintenance amount determined by the Family Court in petition filed by her, being Petition C - No. 55 of 2001. Besides these appeals, there are four civil applications filed during the pendency of Family Court Appeal No. 85 of 2003, being Civil Application No. 28 of 2004, 79 and 87 of 2007 filed by the wife and Civil Application No.262 of 2008 filed by a third party, Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. Even the said applications will be disposed of by this common judgment.
3. We shall first deal with the appeal filed by the husband. The relevant facts for considering the said appeal are that, marriage was solemnised between the parties on 8th February, 1993. No issue is born out of the said wedlock. On account of some differences, the parties started staying separately. It is the case of the wife that she was sent to her parental house by her husband, and was not allowed to return to the matrimonial house and to cohabit with the husband. As a result, she filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 1998, being No. PA.813 of 1998. The said application was contested by the husband. The husband filed cross petition for a decree of divorce. However, the Court decreed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife and rejected the cross petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce, vide decision dated 26th November, 2000.
4. It is the case of the wife that, in spite of the abovesaid decree, the husband did not permit her to return to her matrimonial house and to cohabit with him. She had no source of income of her own, and was fully dependent on her father. For that reason, she filed Petition CNo. 55 of 2001 for maintenance under Section 18 of HAMA on 29th May, 2001. While that petition was pending, the husband filed petition for divorce under Section 13 (1-A)(ii) of HMA before the Family Court on 10th January, 2002, being Petition A No. 28 of 2002. The husband's petition came to be dismissed by thfurther asserted that no execution proceedings were filed by the wife after the decree in her favour for restitution of conjugal rights dated 26th November, 2000. Whereas, she chose to file petition for maintenance under Section 18 of HAMA. This conduct of the wife reveals her greedy attitude. The husband further alleged that, during the pendency of the application for restitution filed by the wife, she took away all her ornaments through Court Commissioner, which fact is also indicative of her intention that she did not want to reside with him. The husband asserted that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties to the marriage for a period of more than one year after the passing of decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties. In this backdrop, the husband prayed for a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of HMA. He further asserted that his business was running in heavy losses, and property belonging to him has been mortgaged to the bank. Further, the movables in the hotel premises have been attached by the Sales Tax Department for non-payment of dues. He has also received electricity bills from M.S.E.B. for Rs.5,04,000/-. Besides, he owes Rs.50,000/- to E.S.I., for which the E.S.I. Department has attached his bank account. He has further stated that, on account of these developments, he is under severe mental stress and is not in a position to take any further steps, which maye Family Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13th December, 2002. The Family Court negatived the relief of divorce claimed by the husband on the finding that he has taken advantage of his own wrong. The Family Court exercised its discretion against the husband on recording the above satisfaction in terms of Section 23(1)(a) of HMA. For that, the Family Court noted two aspects: Firstly, that the husband did not allow the wife to enter his house for resuming cohabitation and frustrated all efforts made by the wife in that behalf. Secondly, he was in arrears of an amount of interim alimony of Rs.30,000/-. This decision is the subject-mater of challenge in the appeal filed by the husband.
5. We shall first revert to the pleadings of the parties. In the petition for divorce filed by the husband, he has stated that the wife, in spite of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, or even prior to the filing of the said petition for such relief, had not cohabited together. Further, the wife did not make any sincere effort for restitution, apart from sending letter to him for restitution. The wife never visited him after the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. That shows that the wife was not at all interested in cohabitation / restitution.
The husband further asserted that no execution proceedings were filed by the wife after the decree in her favour for restitution of conjugal rights dated 26th November, 2000. Whereas, she chose to file petition for maintenance under Section 18 of HAMA. This conduct of the wife reveals her greedy attitude. The husband further alleged that, during the pendency of the application for restitution filed by the wife, she took away all her ornaments through Court Commissioner, which fact is also indicative of her intention that she did not want to reside with him. The husband asserted that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties to the marriage for a period of more than one year after the passing of decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties. In this backdrop, the husband prayed for a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of HMA. He further asserted that his business was running in heavy losses, and property belonging to him has been mortgaged to the bank. Further, the movables in the hotel premises have been attached by the Sales Tax Department for non-payment of dues. He has also received electricity bills from M.S.E.B. for Rs.5,04,000/-. Besides, he owes Rs.50,000/- to E.S.I., for which the E.S.I. Department has attached his bank account. He has further stated that, on account of these developments, he is under severe mental stress and is not in a position to take any further steps, which may cause some harm to his health. He has asserted that his marriage has been irretrievably broken down, and there are no chances of reconciliation.
6. The wife contested the said petition by filing Written Statement. In substance, she denied the allegations made in the petition. Instead, consistent with her case stated in the Petition filed by her for maintenance which was earlier in point of time, she asserted that the husband has failed and neglected to maintain her, and refused her entry in the matrimonial house. It is her case that attempts made by her to resume cohabitation after the decree for restitution were frustrated by the husband. The husband refused her entry in the matrimonial house. She has given specific details of such unsuccessful attempts made by her to resume cohabitation with the husband. She has denied that she demanded money from the husband when she visited his house after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in her favour. She has also denied that she was not interested in cohabitation and restitution. She has asserted that, under compelling circumstances, she was required to file petition for maintenance, and not out of greed for money, as is alleged by the husband. She has also denied the allegation that she has taken away all her belongings from the matrimonial home as alleged.8 1603 She has clarified that she has taken away some of her belongings. That, however, contends the wife, would not mean that she has no desire or intention to reside with the husband. She has asserted that the plea of financial difficulties and heavy business losses has sprung only after she filed application for restitution of conjugal rights. She has denied that the marriage has irretrievably broken down as has been suggested by the husband. It is her case that the husband successively thwarted all her attempts to resume cohabitation. She has asserted that, in the first place, she tried to contact the husband on telephone. She also sent letters to the husband, which remained un-replied. Then she went along with her father to her matrimonial home on 30th December, 2000. The husband was present in the house, but did not allow her to enter the house on the pretext that he intends to file appeal against the decision of the Family Court granting decree for restitution of conjugal rights in her favour. She had to come back, totally dejected, and could not resume cohabitation with her husband, who has, in fact, deserted her. It is her case that the husband was not even providing any maintenance to her, in spite of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in her favour. The cheques tendered by the husband for interim maintenance were dishonoured, and he remained in arrears, thereby compelling her to remain at the mercy of her father. According to the wife, the husband not only failed to abide by9 1603 the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, but prevented her from resuming cohabitation and to discharge their marital obligations. According to the wife, therefore, the husband has disentitled himself for a decree of divorce within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a) of HMA.
7. On the basis of the pleadings in the Petition for divorce filed by the husband, the Family Court framed two points:
(1) Does the respondent (wife) prove that the petitioner (husband) is taking advantage of his own wrong?
(2) What order?
complete order uploaded here : https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-JZGIVy-RW5THdsVEVnZEp5cms/edit?usp=sharing
short link : http://bit.ly/17F56Cm
*****************************************
FOLLOW
@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
regards
Vinayak
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
No comments:
Post a Comment