:1: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2002 Shri Prakash Sopan Kate Age 40 years, Occu:Service Residing at Kate Vasti, Near Shivaji Statue, Dapodi Pune ..Appellant Vs. Sau. Vatsala Prakash Kate Age 35 years, Occ. R/at C/o Shri Dagadu Tukaram Tingre, Mukkam Post Dhanori, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune, Pune 411 015. ..Respondent Mr. U.B. Nighot for appellant. Mr. A.B. Avhad for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. Date : March 05, 2009. Date : March 05, 2009. Date : March 05, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per B.H. Marlapalle,J.) ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per B.H. Marlapalle,J.) ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per B.H. Marlapalle,J.). 1. This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act arises from the Judgment and Order dated 3/11/2001 rendered by the Family Court at Pune thereby dismissing Petition A-189 of 1998 filed by the :2: appellant-husband for seeking divorce under Section 13(1)9(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The parties were married on 25/5/1981 as per the Hindu Vedic rites and they begot a daughter by name Madhuri in the year 1983. She is already married. As per the appellant, the wife left the matrimonial home and went to reside with her parents and did not return to the matrimonial home after she gave birth to the daughter. The appellant tried to bring the wife to the matrimonial home 5-6 times but there was no response. When the daughter was born, the appellant went to meet the respondent but he was insulted and was not allowed to see the daughter. After the daughter became three months old, the appellant went to the in-laws’ house to persuade the respondent-wife to join his company but was not successful in doing so due to the adamant attitude of the respondent. Respondent was not ready and willing to join the matrimonial home and she preferred to stay with her parents who were financially well off. As the wife has refused to join his company, he suffered mental tension and the wife deserted him, claims the :3: appellant. 3. The wife filed Written Statement at Exh.7 and opposed the petition for divorce. She submitted that after the daughter was born, she came to her matrimonial home but was not allowed to enter and was driven out. After some time she again made attempts and managed to stay for about three months. However, the husband was already having mistress by name Naina and, therefore, he ill-treated the respondent and drove her out of the house. She filed Petition No. PE 1154 of 1996 in the Family Court at Pune under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the same was allowed on 15/3/1998. Petition No.E 1960 of 1999 was filed for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court at Pune and the same was allowed on 3/11/2001. The Family Court directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month to the wife and Rs.200/- to the daughter. The wife further submitted that the husband was trying to take benefits of his own faults and the petition was filed on frivolous and fabricated grounds. She asserted that she was ready and willing to join the :4: matrimonial home along with her daughter at any time. 4. In support of his petition, the appellant examined himself at Exh.35 and to oppose the petition the respondent stepped into the witness box (Exh.58). In his cross-examination, the appellant stated, "After respondent left my house, I had not filed any petition against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. So also, I have not issued any notice to the respondent through my advocate asking respondent to reside with him. After the marriage for the period of one year respondent was sent to her parents house for some festivals. Respondent has a daughter from me by name Madhuri. It is not possible for me to mention the dates on which respondent left my house without my consent as the same had taken place 18 years back. So also, it is not possible for me to mention the date on which I have gone to bring the respondent to my house. The said dates are also not mentioned in the petition........ :5: Not true that Naina is my second wife. Not true that prior to my marriage with respondent, I had love affairs with my said second wife Naina. Not true that said Naina has two children from me and their names are Tushar and Harshad and that both the sons are taking education in a school at Lonawala. Not true that as I had love affairs with Naina, I used to assault the respondent severely and that I used to drive the respondent out of the house and used to ask the respondent to commit suicide...." . In her depositions before the Family Court, the respondent-wife stated that her husband was maintaining a keep by name Naina and when she objected for the same, the husband asked her not to interfere in his affairs and he assaulted her. After 2 to 4 months she came to know that her husband had performed second marriage. When she was pregnant of 9 months she was assaulted by the husband and was reached at her father’s house. Though information was given after the child was born and message was sent to the :6: husband to take back his wife and daughter, he did not respond. When she went to the matrimonial home along with her father, she was not allowed to enter the house, was abused and beaten. She, therefore, returned to her parents home and continued to stay there with the support of her brother. 5. During the course of the arguments before us, the appellant admitted to have begot two children from Naina. Son Tushar was born in 1989 and Harshad was born in 1994. It is thus clear that while in the witness box the appellant made false statements on oath regarding his second marriage with Naina and the two children he begot from her. The Family Court while deciding the applications under Sections 125 and 127 of the Cr.P.C. recorded a finding that the husband had neglected the wife and refused to maintain her. It has also come on record that some agricultural land standing in the name of the appellant was mutated in the name of Naina, his second wife and the residential house was also transferred/purchased in her name. The appellant is a Central Government employee in as much as he is :7: employed with the Armament Research Development Establishment at Pashan, Pune and while his first marriage with the respondent was subsisting, he performed the second marriage with Naina. The Family Court was, therefore, right in recording a finding that the appellant had driven his wife out of the matrimonial home, ill-treated her and did not take any steps to bring her back and, in fact, did not allow her, along with the daughter, to enter the matrimonial home and thus was taking benefits of his own wrongs. No court will have sympathy for a person like the appellant. 6. We are satisfied that the impugned Judgment and Order does not call for any interference as the appellant failed to make any ground of cruelty against the wife and the charge of desertion was frivolous and fabricated. Hence the appeal must fail. 7. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed with costs. In addition, the appellant shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-wife by way of legal expenses. :8: (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)