RohitBhimsenKhurana

age39years,Occ:Service,R/o.Flat
No.201,SimranPlazaSociety,
Sec.44,PlotNo.144,Karave,Nerul
(W),NaviMumbai.
Versus

C
ou

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
SECONDAPPEALNO.869of2012

rt

Second appeal.doc

...Appellant
(originalPetitioner)

ig
h

1.AdvocateNehaRohitKhurana
Age37years,Occ:Housewife
2.Ms.RashikaRohitKhurana
Age10years,Occ:Student
3.KrishRohitKhurana,
Age5years,Occ:Student

ba
y

Nos.2and3beingMinorThrough
theirLegalGuardianMotherNo.1
AllR/oJ1203,NargisBuilding,
JalvayuDefenceEnclave,Sec20Plot
20,Kharghar,
NaviMumbai410210

...Respondents
(OriginalRespondents)

om

Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar,i/bMr.AmoghKarandikar
fortheAppellant.
Mr.NitinP.DeshpandeforRespondents.
CORAM:M.L.TAHALIYANI,J.
DATEONWHICHTHEJUDGMENTIS
RESERVED:8thMAY,2015.
DATEONWHICHTHEJUDGMENTIS
PRONOUNCED:9thJULY,2015.
megha

PageNo.1of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

rt

ORALJUDGMENT:

C
ou

This second appeal has been admitted by this Court

(Coram:R.Y.Ganoo,J.)on21stJanuary,2013asfollowingsubstantial
questionsoflawareinvolved:

ig
h

a)WhethertheAppellateCourtseriouslyerredinignoring
theallegationsofadulterymadebytheRespondentwife,
whichcouldnotbeprovedbyherandthatmakingofsuch
allegationamountstocruelty?

b)WhethertheAppellateCourtiscorrectinignoringthe
evidence brought on record by the Appellant husband
whichrightlyprovesthattheRespondentwifehastreated
theAppellanthusbandincruelmanner?

om

ba
y

c)WhethertheAppellateCourtiscorrectinsettingaside
theDecreepassedbytheTrialCourtwhenthefindingsand
observationsrecordedbytheTrialCourtinrespectofIssue
No.1 i.e. Whether Petitioner proves that Respondent has
treated him with cruelty? and Issue No.2 i.e. Whether
petitionerisentitledfordivorcefromrespondent?hasnot
beenchallengedbytheRespondentwifeinherMemoof
AppealfiledbeforetheAppellateCourt?

d)WhethertheAppellateCourtwascorrectinsettingaside
thedecreefordivorcepassedbytheTrialCourt,whenthe
Respondent wife in the Memorandum of Appeal has not
given a single ground for challenging the said decree of
divorce. The entire appeal memo is only regarding
Alimony.
e) Whether the Appellate Court is right in coming to
conclusionthatifthepartiesledanormalsexuallifeeven
after a series of acts of cruelty by one spouse strongly
showed that the parties had condoned their grievances
whichtheyhadagainsteachother?

megha

PageNo.2of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

2.

TheAppellanthadfiledapetitionundersection13(1)(i

rt

a)oftheHinduMarriageAct1955forgrantofdecreeofdivorceon

C
ou

the ground of cruelty. The petition was heard by Jt. Civil Judge,
SeniorDivision,PanvelandwasfinallydecidedasHMPNo.82/2008
on1722011.TheTrialCourtpassedthefollowingorder:

ig
h

1.Thepetitionispartlyallowed.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and opponent
solemnized on 28th April, 1999 at Delhi, is hereby
dissolved.
3. The prayer of possession of Flat No.J1203, JalVayu
Vihar Nargis Building, Sector 20, Plot No.20, Kharghar,
NaveMumbai,andreentryinthatflat,isdismissed.
4. Inthepeculiarcircumstancesofthispetition,noorder
astocosts.
5. Decreebedrawnupaccordingly.

TheRespondenttookupthematterinappealbeforethe

ba
y

3.

DistrictCourt,Raigad. TheappealwasheardbytheAdhocDistrict

om

JudgevideAppealNo.72of2011andwasdecidedon1872012.The
appeal was allowed and judgment and decree passed by the Trial

Courtwassetaside. TheAppellant(originalPetitioner)hasmoved
thisCourtbywayofthepresentsecondappeal.
4.

BeforeIdealwiththelawpointsframedbythisCourtitis

necessary to state the facts in brief that gave rise to the divorce
petitionandtheevidenceofboththeparties. TheAppellantRohit
andRespondentNehagotmarriedon2841999.Afterthemarriage
megha

PageNo.3of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

theylivedtogetheratmatrimonialhomeatDelhi.Shehaddelivered

rt

twochildrenoutofthesaidwedlock.Oneon682000andanother

5.

C
ou

on1022006.

ItwasallegedbytheAppellantbeforetheTrialCourtthat

theRespondentNo.1wasinhabitofattendinglatenightpartiesin

ig
h

Delhi.SheusedtoignoretheadvicegivenbythePetitionerandused
tocreate scenes, if preventedfromherattendingtheparties. It is
allegedthattheRespondentNo.1isveryshorttemperedandshehas

norespectformarriageandthefamilyofthePetitioner.Sheusedto
becomeaggressiveandabusivefrequently.Fewoftheincidentshave

ba
y

beenmentionedbythePetitionerinpara3ofthepetitionindicating
thatRespondentNo.1wasofabusivenatureandshewasveryshort

om

tempered.
6.

The Appellant was holding Diploma as a Mariner and

lateron he had obtained a degree as Masters Mariner. It is thus,

obvious that his duty was on the ship. It is stated by him in the
petitionthaton2951999hetooktheRespondentNo.1ontheshipas
she insisted for the same. There was no improvement in her
behaviourontheshipalso.SheusedtopubliclyinsulttheAppellant
andtheAppellanthadtosufferseverehumiliationandembarrassment
megha

PageNo.4of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

duetomisconductonthepartofRespondentNo.1.Itisallegedthat

rt

RespondentNo.1haddemandedUS$3000forspendingtopurchase

C
ou

giftsforhermotherwhentheshiphadreachedUkrain. Evenafter
returningtoIndiashehadbeenspendingmostofhertimewithher
motherathermother'shouse.ItisfurtherallegedthattheAppellant
hadtoleavehisexaminationatCalcuttaasRespondentNo.1insisted

ig
h

thatheshouldcomeimmediatelyafterdeliveryofafemalechildon6
82000.TheAppellanttherefore,rushedbacktoDelhi.However,he

wasnottreatedwellintheHospitalbytheRespondentNo.1andher
mother. ItisallegedthatRespondentNo.1andhermotherwanted

ba
y

the Appellant to stay separately from his parents. The Appellant

decidedtoputanendtothedisputeandtherefore,heshiftedtoa
rentedhouseat Vikaspuri,Delhion2092000. Aftersettlinginthe

om

househewenttoKolkatatoattendremainingMastersexamination.
However,whenhereturnedtoDelhihefoundthatRespondentNo.1

wasathermother'shouse. TheAppellantwenttheretobringher
back to their house at Vikaspuri, Delhi. At that time also he was
humiliatedandnottreatedwellbyRespondentNo.1andhermother.
It is alleged that on one occasion she even went to the extent of
tearingherclothesastheAppellantwasintendingtoshiftbackhis
parents'house. ItisstatedthatRespondentNo.1hadapologisedfor
megha

PageNo.5of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

her misdeeds in the month of August, 2002 and therefore, the

rt

AppellantdecidedtohaveafreshmarriedlifewithRespondentNo.1.

C
ou

However,withinaveryshorttimeshestartedcreatingscenesinthe
house.
7.

On 2192003 the Appellant booked a flat in Kharghar,

ig
h

Navi Mumbai because of continuous demand on the part of

RespondentNo.1. FathersupportedtheAppellantandpaid50%of
thepurchaseprice.TheAppellanttookpossessionoftheFlaton156

2014. TheAppellantandRespondentstartedlivingtogetherinthe
saidhouse. However,changeinthenatureofRespondentNo.1did

ba
y

not last longer and she started attending late night parties on the
pretextthatshehadtomeetherclientstilllateintheevening. She

om

alsoneglectedherchildrenduetoherextravagantbehaviour. Itis
alleged that in the month of December2005 mother of the

RespondentstartedstayingatKhargharandshestartedinterferingin
theinternalaffairsoftheAppellantandRespondentNo.1.Thereused
to be frequent misdemeanors on the part of Respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 started sleeping with her mother. The Appellant
allegesthathewasalone.Hewasdeprivedoffoodalso.Respondent
No.1 and her mother used to leave house for long hours in the

megha

PageNo.6of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

absenceoftheAppellantandwerenotavailablewhenthePetitioner

rt

wasreturninghome.On622006shehadaquarrelwithparentsof

C
ou

the Appellant and she had crossed all the limits of decency and
ultimatelyhitfatheroftheAppellantandbrokehisspectacles. The

Appellantwasrequiredtomakeseparatearrangementforhisparents.
Because of continuous alleged mental torture on the part of

ig
h

RespondentNo.1,theAppellantsufferedfromseveredepressionand
hewasadvisedcompletebedrest.Fewmoreincidentsofthisnature

havealsobeenstatedintheappealtodemonstratethatRespondent
No.1 had treated the Appellant with extreme cruelty and he was

8.

ba
y

entitledfordecreeofdivorceonthegroundcruelty.
The Appellant had lateron taken up the job in another

om

company.ItisallegedthattheAppellantwasremovedfromthehouse
forciblybyRespondentNo.1.RespondentNo.1hadalsobeenvisiting

officeoftheAppellantandusedtocreatescenesintheoffice.
9.

As such the cruelty alleged against Respondent No.1 is

mainly mental cruelty. It is stated by the Appellant that the

misbehaviour of Respondent No.1 on many occasions, her frequent
latenightpartiesandoutburstonsmallerissueshadmadethelifeof
theAppellantmiserable.
megha

PageNo.7of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

LearnedTrialCourtframedthefollowingissuesandgave

rt

10.

under:

Findings

1. Whether petitioner proves

that respondent has treated
him with cruelty?

In the affirmative

2. Whether petitioner is entitled

for divorce from respondent?

In the affirmative

3. What order and decree

As per final order.

ig
h

Issues

LearnedTrialCourtfoundtheevidenceoftheAppellant

11.

C
ou

findingrecordedagainstthesaidissueswhichcanbereproducedas

reliableandhealsofoundtheallegationsmadebyRespondentNo.1

ba
y

against the Appellant baselessandcame tothe conclusion thatthe

Appellantwastreatedwithcrueltyandtherefore,hewasentitledfor
decreeofdivorce. Heallowedthepetitiontothatextent. Thefinal

om

orderoftheTrialJudgehasalreadybeenreproducedhereinabove.

12.

The Appellate Court framed the following issues after

hearing the Appellant (original Respondent) and the Respondent

(originalPetitioner):

megha

Points

Findings

1. Whether the opponent

treated the petitioner with
cruelty?

In the negative.

2. Whether petitioner is entitled

In the negative.
PageNo.8of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

In the Affirmative.

4. What order

Appeal is allowed.

C
ou

13.

3. Whether the impugned

judgment and decree need to
be interfered with?

rt

for decree of divorce?

Beforeproceedingfurtheritisnecessarytobenotedhere

that the affidavit of the Appellant and Respondent No.1 both

ig
h

submittedintheTrialCourtbywayofexaminationinchiefappeared
tohavebeenpreparedbythepartiesthemselvesandtherefore,they

are too verbose andcontainedlot ofirrelevant material. Itisalso

necessarytobestatedherethatcrossexaminationoftheAppellant

ba
y

wasonlyfullofsuggestionsandtherefore,thelearnedTrialJudgehas
givenfindingthattheevidencegivenbythePetitionerbeforetheTrial
Judgehadremainedunchallenged. TheAppellateCourtinmyview

om

hadtakencorrectviewofthematterandhasstatedthattheCourt
shouldhavetakenintoaccounttheentireevidenceandconductofthe

parties. The Appellate Court while examining the evidence of the

Appellant and Respondent No.1, particularly the Appellant has
segregated some irrelevant portion of the evidence which has
consumedalargeportionoftheexaminationinchiefoftheAppellant.
TheAppellanthasstatedinhisevidencethatwhentherelativesof
Respondent No.1 had come with a marriage proposal they were
megha

PageNo.9of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

accompanied by a boy, who was stated to be their nephew and

rt

lateronitturnedoutthathewasclassmateofRespondentNo.1.He

C
ou

has further stated that Respondent No.1wasfromabroken family

backgroundasherparentswereseparatedafteralonglegalbattle.
The Appellant has further stated that Respondent No.1 had also a
brokenloveaffairandtherefore,sheneverwantedtomarry. Ithas

ig
h

alsocomeinhisevidencethathersistergotmarriedtoherownRakhi
brother and lateron settled in USA to avoid social embarrassment.

14.

Thisportionofevidencefoundtobeirrelevanttotheproceeding.
Inmyopinion,learnedAppellateCourthastakenaright

ba
y

noteoftheirrelevantportionoftheevidence.ThelearnedAppellate
Court has also stated that above said alleged background of

om

RespondentNo.1wasrepeatedbytheAppellantatmanyplacesinthe
evidence. Thathasresultedintounnecessarilylengthyexamination

inchief of the Appellant. Same is the case with the evidence of

Respondent No.1 also. As far as physical violence is concerned the
AppellanthadcitedtwoincidentsonthepartofRespondentNo.1.It
isstatedbytheAppellantthatsoonafterthemarriagewhentheywere
sailingontheship,RespondentNo.1hadslappedhiminpresenceof
his colleagues. The Appellate Court has disbelieved this evidence

megha

PageNo.10of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

becausethereisnocorroboration.Itistobenotedthatcorroboration

rt

isnotarule.However,inthecircumstancesofthecasetheevidence

C
ou

hasbecomedoubtfulwithoutcorroboration. Thereisnoincidental

repercussions of the said incident which may land credence to the

evidenceoftheAppellant.

It is also stated by the Appellant that on one of the

ig
h

15.

evenings when he came back home he had seen Respondent No.1

goinginacarwithagentlemansittingbesideher.TheAppellanttried

toindicateRespondentNo.1tostopbutshedidnotlistenanddrove
away the Car. This evidence is neither corroborated by any direct

ba
y

evidenceorcircumstantialevidence. Thereisnoevidencethatthe
Appellant had ever questioned this behaviour of Respondent No.1

om

afterherarrivalathome.
16.

TheAppellantfurtherallegesthatmotherofRespondent

No.1 frequently interfered in their married life and she used to

instigateRespondentNo.1tobehaveindifferentlywiththeAppellant.
These are the allegations made generally and there is no specific
incident orseries ofincidentswhichmayleadtoaconclusionthat
mother of Respondent No.1 did not want Respondent No.1 to live
peacefullywithherhusband. Itispossiblethattheremaybesome
megha

PageNo.11of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

frictions in the married life and it is also possible that mother of

rt

RespondentNo.1mighthaveintervenedinthesituation. However,

C
ou

thatdoesnotleadtoaconclusionthatthemotherofRespondentNo.1
wasagainsttheAppellantandshewantedtocreateanyripplesinthe
marriedlifeoftheAppellantandRespondentNo.1.Onthecontrary
there was no reason for mother of Respondent No.1 to create a

17.

ig
h

situationwhereherowndaughter'slifewillbeinperil.
The Appellant further states that his father was once

assaulted by Respondent No.1 and in the process spectacles of his

father had broken and ultimatelyhehadtokeephisparentsaway

ba
y

fromhisownhouse.Thisevidencecouldhavebeensupportedbythe
evidence of father or mother of the Appellant. No reasonable

om

explanationisgivenastowhythefatherormotheroftheAppellant
couldnotdeposedinsupportofevidenceoftheirownson.TheCourt

hadnotedthatboththeparentsoftheAppellanthadbeenattending
thisCourtthroughoutthehearingofthepresentSecondAppeal. In
thecircumstancesitwasexpectedthateitherfatherormothercould
havegivenevidenceinsupportoftheevidenceoftheAppellant.

megha

PageNo.12of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

18.

The next allegation against Respondent No.1 is with

rt

regardtoherbehaviourintheofficeoftheAppellant.Itisstatedby

C
ou

theAppellantinhisevidencethatRespondentNo.1frequentlyvisited
hisofficeandcreatedscenesintheoffice.Thisevidenceissupported
byoneofthecolleaguesoftheAppellant.Eveniftheevidencewith
regardtotheallegedscenecreatedintheofficeisbelieved,itdoesnot

ig
h

lead to the conclusion that it amounted to mental cruelty inflicted

upontheAppellantbyRespondentNo.1.ItappearsthatRespondent

No.1wasinterestedtoknowtheincomeoftheAppellantsothatshe
canclaimappropriatemaintenancefromhimintheproceedingsfiled

ba
y

by her. There was series of litigations between the Appellant and

Respondent No.1. The Petition under Protection of Women from
DomesticViolenceActwasfiledbyRespondentNo.1.Apetitionunder

om

adoption and maintenance Act was filed by Respondent No.1. A

petitionwasfiledbytheAppellantforrestitutionofconjugalrights

and the present petition for divorce was filed by the Appellant.
Therefore,itispossiblethatRespondentNo.1mighthavemisbehaved
intheofficebuttheintentionwasnottobecruelwiththeAppellant
buttogetthefigureofrealincomeoftheAppellant,sothatshecould
beinapositiontoclaimpropermaintenance.

megha

PageNo.13of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

19.

Apartfromthis,therearelotofstrayincidentsmentioned

rt

bytheAppellantinhisevidencetodemonstratethathewassubjected

C
ou

tocruelty.Ihaveexaminedallthestrayincidents.Suchincidents,in
myopinion,takeplaceinmanyofthefamilies. Onlythingisthat
sincethemarriagebetweentheAppellantandRespondentNo.1was

20.

ig
h

disturbed,thefrequencyofincidentscouldbemore.

The Appellant had also alleged that Respondent was in

habitofattendinglatenightparties.Butthereisnoevidencetocome

to the conclusion that on a particular date Respondent No.1 was

drunkorhadexcessliquorandhadcometothehouseataparticular

ba
y

time.Socialisingtosomeextentinthepresentsocietyispermissible.
InthisregarditmaybenotedherethatRespondentNo.1hasalso

om

givenevidencethattheAppellantwasoncefoundinacompanyof
female friend, who was extremely drunk and she was brought at

house of the Appellant because she was unable to go alone. This

indicatesthatlifeoftheAppellantandRespondentNo.1wasnota
normallifeofconservativemarriedcouple.Bothofthemappearedto
beinthenatureofsocialisingandwereinhabitofenjoyingparties.
Therefore,itcannotbeconcludedthatRespondentNo.1hadsubjected
theAppellanttocruelty,eitherphysicalormental.

megha

PageNo.14of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

It is further necessary to be noted here that despite

rt

21.

C
ou

disturbed marriedlife, bothofthemhadcometogetheraftersome

timeandhadanormalmarriedlife. Itwascontendedonbehalfof
Respondent No.1 that the Appellant had therefore condoned the
earlierbehaviourofRespondentNo.1andthatevidenceinrespectof

ig
h

behaviour of Respondent No.1earlier tothe reunion cannot taken

intoconsideration. Idonotwanttodwellmuchuponthisaspectof

theappeal.Sufficeistosaythatevenifearlierconductistakeninto
consideration, element of mental or physical cruelty is not proved

ba
y

even by probabilities. In my opinion learned Appellate Court has

takenrightviewoftheevidence.LearnedTrialCourthasbelievedthe
evidenceoftheAppellantonlybecausehewasnoteffectivelycross

om

examined.

22.

Nowletmedealwiththelawpointsonebyoneonthe

basisofwhich,thesecondappealhasbeenadmittedbythisCourt.
Pointoneiswithregardtotheallegationofadulterymadeagainstthe
AppellantbyRespondentNo.1.Inthisregarditmaybenotedthatthe
AppellanthadalsomadesimilarallegationsagainstRespondentNo.1,
whichhavebeendiscussedbythisCourtatparaNos.13and15ofthe
megha

PageNo.15of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

present judgment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellate

23.

C
ou

toincorrectconclusionthattherewasnomentalcruelty.

rt

Courthasignoredtheallegationofadulteryandhastherefore,come

SecondpointisthatthefirstappellateCourtignoredthe

evidence of the Appellant. The perusal of judgment of second

ig
h

appellatecourtwouldclearlyindicatethatthesecondappellatecourt
has taken objective view of the matter and has come to the right

conclusion. Ihavegivenlittlemoredetailsofthejudgmentoffirst

ba
y

appellatecourtintheearlierparagraphsofthisjudgment.

24.

ThirdpointraisedbytheAppellantisthattherewasno

prayerforsettingasidethedecreeofdivorce.Thisisnotcorrectinas

om

muchasthefirstappealwasfiledtochallengethewholejudgmentof

thetrialcourt.

25.

Fourthpointinfactmergesintothethirdpointanddoes

notrequireanyseparateanswer.

26.

Asfarasfifthpointisconcerneditmaybestatedherethat

theAppellantandRespondentNo.1livedreasonablynormallifeafter
megha

PageNo.16of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::

Second appeal.doc

resumption of their marital relations. I have already stated in my

rt

earlier portion of the judgment that there were allegations and

C
ou

counterallegations.IfonegoesthroughtheevidenceoftheAppellant

andRespondentNo.1recordedbytheTrialCourt,itwilldemonstrate
that equally serious allegations have been made by the Appellant
againstRespondentNo.1. Theallegationonthebasisofwhichthe

ig
h

Appellantclaimsthathewassubjectedtocrueltybyhiswife,have
beenmadebytheAppellantalsoagainsthiswifeRespondentNo.1.It

therefore,appearsthatbothofthemwereinhabitofsocialisingandit
ispossiblethattheymisunderstoodeachother.Thereisnoconcrete

ba
y

evidencethattheAppellantwastreatedwithcrueltybyRespondent
No.1andtherefore,heisnotentitledforadecreeofdivorceonthe

om

groundofcruelty.

27.

In the circumstances the Second Appeal must fail. The

secondappealistherefore,dismissed.Noorderastocosts.

(JUDGE)

megha

PageNo.17of17

::: Downloaded on - 16/08/2015 09:46:49 :::