:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2008 Mr. Prakash Devidas Shah ..Appellant Vs. Mrs. Pratibha Prakash Shah ..Respondent Mr. A.G. Damle for appellant. Mr. Jayprakash Dhanuka for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.B. BHOSALE,JJJ. D.B. BHOSALE,JJJ. D.B. BHOSALE,JJJ. Dated: August 20, 2008. Dated: August 20, 2008. Dated: August 20, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Damle the learned counsel for the appellant-husband who had approached the Family Court seeking divorce by filing Petition No.A-506 of 2002 and the said petition has been dismissed. Mr. Damle has placed on record the notes of evidence and it is clear that the husband stepped in the witness box in support of his case and the wife was examined to oppose the petition for divorce. 2. The grounds on which divorce was sought by the husband could be briefly stated as under:- :2: (a) The behaviour and attitude of the wife towards the husband and allegedly causing him misery and mental tension. (b) The wife’s attitude was not co-operative and this caused tension to the husband. (c) The wife suspected the husband’s activities. (d) She was mostly attached to her parents’ home and was neglecting the matrimonial home. She also neglected the domestic work. (e) She was employed as an Technician with the Indian Navy on a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- but did not contribute a single pai towards the household expenses. (f) The wife had no interest in living at matrimonial home and she remained absent from the duty for more than one year. :3: (g) She did not socialize with relations, friends and other visitors. (h) She discourages her son Mayank from mixing with the children. (i) She made a false statement that she wanted to go to Nasik when in fact she had gone to Shirdi. j) The wife did not perform the marital obligations and left the matrimonial home without intimating the husband and with an intention not to return back and resume cohabitation. 3. The parties were married on 12/5/1992 and they have a son by name Mayank born on 20/11/1995. It was the husband’s case that the wife has left the matrimonial home in December, 2001 and despite his efforts she did not resume cohabitation. 4. Admittedly, the wife is an employee of the :4: Indian Navy and she has her office at Churchgate. Her office timings are between 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and, therefore, she was required to leave home at 6.30 a.m. and by the time she went back to home, it would be around 7 p.m. After her delivery she had to take leave for almost one year on account of ill-health. In her Written Statement, while opposing the petition for divorce, she pointed out that she was driven out of the matrimonial house and despite her repeated requests, the husband did not allow her to come back to the matrimonial house. While she was in the witness box for cross-examination, the learned Judge of the Family Court recorded the following observations:- "During the pendency of the petition, the respondent number of times before the court itself requested the petitioner that he would take her back but the husband all the while stated that because of the earlier incidents occurred and alleged in the petition, he was not willing to resume cohabitation." :5: 5. We have perused the petition memo as well as the affidavit filed by the husband by way of examination-in-chief and we have noted that not a single specific ground was made out either in support of his case of cruelty or desertion. Vague allegations of neglecting the matrimonial home, uncooperative attitude, not mixing with friends and relations etc. have been made. Undoubtedly, they have stayed together as husband and wife for about seven years and all the alleged incidents are nothing short of the normal wear and tear in the matrimonial life. The learned Judge of the Family Court rightly held that it was the husband who was taking the benefit of his own wrong and sought a divorce. The wife was not allowed to resume cohabitation. She had to admit the child in a school located in Malad solely because the school was near her parental home where she was staying after she was removed from the matrimonial home. 6. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order passed by the Family Court does not call for any interference and this appeal must fail at the threshold. :6: 7. The appeal is dismissed in limine. (D.B. Bhosale,J.) (D.B. Bhosale,J.) (D.B. Bhosale,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)