DV ACT 2005   |   IPC 498A   |   Maintenance

Number of Documents : 1





Family Court Appeal No 55 of 2016Smt. Vasanti A. NaikBharti vs AnilHMA 13A


The Family court, rightly appreciated the evidence tendered by the husband on record to a hold that the husband was successful in proving that the wife had deserted him without any just or reasonable excuse. The Family Court 11/08/2008. found that admittedly The Family the wife Court was found residing that in there her was parental no cohabitation home from between the parties after 11/08/2008. Though the wife had claimed money that the from husband her and and were his family illĀ­treating members her for were nonĀ­fulfillment demanding dowry of the said and demands, the wife did not enter the witness box to prove her case. There is no complaint or any other document on record to show that the husband and his family members indeed demanded dowry from the parents of the wife. The Family Court found that there was nothing t on record to show that there was reasonable and justifiable cause for rthe wife to stay away from the matrimonial home for five years. u The Family Court observed that the wife had pleaded in her written statement that she was ready to cohabit with the husband, however, C she had not filed any counter claim to show that she really intended to reside with the husband. It was found that the wife had never filed any proceedings during the period of five years for the h restitution of conjugal rights. The husband had admittedly served g notices on the wife dated 07/06/2011 iand 20/06/2011 informing her that despite the best efforts made by him and his family H members, the wife was not ready to join his company and, therefore, it was necessary for the wife to agree for a decree y of divorce by consent. The wife, for the reasons best known to a her, did not reply to the said notices. Several facts are stated in these b notices to show that the husband had made genuine efforts to ensure m not that reply the wife to the returns notices to served the matrimonial by the husband home. in the The year wife, 2011 however and also did o did not make any efforts to join his company. There is nothing in the written concretestatement efforts to join of the the wife company to show of the that husband the wife during had the made period any of five years, after she left the matrimonial home on 11/08/2008. It is not the case of the wife that though she went to the matrimonial home after 11/08/2008, she was not permitted to enter the same. The Family Court, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the husband t had made sufficient efforts to ensure that the wife returns to rthe matrimonial home but there was no positive response u from the wife. The Family Court, therefore, rightly held that there o was no just or reasonable excuse for the wife to leave the company C of the husband. The Family Court, therefore, recorded a finding that the wife had deserted the husband without any just or reasonable excuse. In the circumstances of th case, it cannot h be said that the Family Court has considered only the factum g of desertion and not the factum of animus ideserendi, as is submitted on behalf of the wife. The finding recorded by the Family Court on H the issue of desertion is just and proper and does not call for any interference. The judgments reported in 2010 (1) Mh.L.J. y 735 and 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 277 and relied on by the learned a counsel for the wife cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.