1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.371 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.371 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.371 OF 2007 Shri Vinayak Sadashiv Mahajan : Appellant. versus Sou.Sarojini Vinayak Mahajan : Respondent. Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the appellant. Mr.S.M.Railkar for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED DATED DATED : JULY 07, 2008. : JULY 07, 2008. : JULY 07, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the District Judge, Sangli, dated 14.7.2006 by which order the appeal filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the decree of judicial separation passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli in Hindu Marriage Petition No.33 of 2000 dated 17.4.2002 was set aside. The appellant herein was the applicant in Hindu Marriage Petition 2 No.33 of 2000 which he had filed for divorce on the ground that the respondent/wife had deserted him. The said Hindu Marriage Petition came to be allowed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli by his judgment and order dated 17.4.2002. The trial court held that the appellant/husband has only proved that the wife/respondent was not staying with him but he had failed to prove that she had deserted him without sufficient cause and further passed a decree for judicial separation. 2. It appears that prior to that the appellant/husband had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights being Hindu Marriage Petition No.173 of 1996. In the said application the parties had arrived at compromise. The gist of the terms of the said compromise was that the appellant herein was to seek transfer at either of three places which were mentioned in the compromise and, the corresponding application was to be made by the respondent herein so that they could cohibit together. The respondent/wife, who was financially better of than the appellant/husband was also to provide some financial assistance. It appears that the said compromise was not implemented inasmuch as the appellant/husband did not file an application for 3 transfer at any of the three places mentioned therein. 3. The Lower Appellate Court, therefore, on the ground that none of the parties had asked for decree for judicial separation, set aside the same. The Lower Appellate Court, after taking into consideration the facts of the case, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent/wife was always ready and willing to reside with the appellant/husband and it was for appellant/husband who had reneged on the terms of the compromise. 4. Having perused the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court, in my view, exercise of the Appellate jurisdiction has warranted and the said findings cannot be said to be perverse. The challenge of the Appellants in the second appeal raises no substantial question of law. Hence the second appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, Civil Application No.394 of 2007, does not survive and is dispose of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, J] J] J]