-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.149 OF 2008 Ramdas B.Kadu .. Appellant. Vs. Sonali R.Kadu .. Respondent. Mr.K.S.Patil for the appellant. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2008. PC: PC: PC: . We have heard Mr.Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The husband has approached the Family Court at Pune and filed the petition for divorce under section 13(1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. on the ground of cruelty and the said petition has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 27.3.2008. 3. The parties were married on 30.5.2002. The daughter - Vaishnavi was born on 9.3.2003. In the written statement filed by the wife she has alleged that she was subjected to harassment and while she was pregnant for seven months for the second time, she was taken to her maternal home by the husband in July, 2005 -2- and the son Aditya was born on 4.10.2005. The husband thereafter did not bother to bring his wife and children to his house and on the contrary filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights i.e. P.A.No.724/2000. The petitioner-husband filed a purshis and unilaterally withdrew earlier petition on 22nd March, 2006. It appears that thereafter the husband filed petition No.P.A-517/2006 for divorce. 4. We have gone through the impugned order and the reasoning in support thereof. The petitioner had received a copy of the notice sent by the wife on 19.8.2005 and in support of his petition. As noted earlier, the wife was taken to her maternal home in July, 2005 and she delivered the second child on 4.10.2005 and, therefore, there was no reason to issue the said legal notice. In support of the averments regarding cruelty there is no specific incidence nor was there any evidence and the Family court noted that in any case till 22nd March, 2006 if the husband was pursuing the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights, the ground of cruelty would arise only thereafter. The incidence of alleged suicide as set out in the petition was considered by the lower court and held that there was no supporting evidence available on record. 5. During the course of hearing we asked Mr.Patil -3- to find out from the appellant-husband, who is present in the court, whether he would take his wife to his house in case she appears before us and shows her willingness to stay with him and resume matrimonial ties and in fact such an intentino was clearly made out by the wife in the written statement before the Family Court opposing the petition for divorce. The husband clearly declined and this behaviour on his part clearly shows his determination to get rid of the wife. 6. We are satisfied that the well reasoned order of the Family Court does not fail on any count and no case is made out on the ground of cruelty. This appeal must therefore fail at the threshold. 7. The appeal is dismissed in limine. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)