* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2005 IN MATRIMONIAL PETITION NO.A-1062 OF 2003 Mr. Rashmikant B. Sanjaliwala ] Aged about 45 years, ] Occ. : Business ] Appellant R/o : Flat No.4, Opp. Oshiwara ] (Ori. Petitioner) Police Station, Adarsh Nagar Junction, ] Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400 053 ] Vs. Mrs. Neeta Rashmikant Sanjaliwala ] Aged about 42 years, ] Occ.: Housewife, ] R/o : Sarvottam Building, 3rd floor, ] Respondent S.V. Road, Near Irla, Andheri (West), ] (Ori. Respondent) Mumbai - 400 058 ] At present R/o : 401, Montreal, ] Shastri Nagar, Lokhandwala, ] Mumbai - 400 053. ] Mr. A.M. Vernekar, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. Seema Sarnaik adv.for the respondent. Coram :- A.P. Deshpande, & Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, JJ. Judgment Reserved on : 5th April, 2010 Judgment Pronounced on : 28th April, 2010. * 2 * JUDGMENT : (Per :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J) 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 21st July 2005 passed by the Family Court dismissing the husband s’ petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty filed under Section 13(1) (ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and in the alternative for judicial separation. 2. The parties got married on 23rd February, 1996 at Mumbai according to Hindu vedic rites and started residing in joint family at Andheri. In the year 1998, the family got divided. The parties to the appeal along with the parents of the appellant shifted to rental premises, whereas the brother of the appellant and his grand parents continued to live in the old house. There is no issue born from the wedlock. At the time of the marriage, the appellant was a share broker having his office at Dadar, running business in partnership which got dissolved in March 2000. Then the appellant formed a Private Limited Company by name Trendy Securities Pvt. Ltd., of which the appellant and the respondent were the Directors, each entitled to draw salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. They had joint savings account with State Bank of Indore, in which the salary of the respondent was credited. The respondent did not operate the bank account at any point of time. It was operated by the appellant * 3 * alone. In the year 2000, a flat was purchased in the joint names of the parties, for which loan of Rs.10 lacs was jointly taken from the bank. The installment of the loan was paid alternately from the joint account, in which the salary in the name of the respondent was credited. In November 2002, the respondent went to stay at her parents house. On 8th June 2003, she came to the matrimonial home along with her mother and stayed there for some days. The parties have been living separately since July 2003. 3. The acts of cruelty alleged by the appellant in his petition for divorce are that : (i) respondent suffers from exaggerated superiority complex and simultaneously inferiority complex. Consequently she did not mix up with the appellant s family. She also ’ did not accompany him to any of the family functions. (ii) She did not respect the appellant s parents and would ’ back answer them and not cook for them. (iii) She used to pick up quarrels with the appellant and then leave the house in anger. (iv) She did not like living in a joint family and desired to have a separate house. (v) She had threatened to commit suicide by consuming * 4 * poison and at another time by jumping from 5th floor, holding the appellant responsible for it. (vi) The respondent is of a suspicious nature and had alleged that the appellant is having relationship with one of his close friend s wife. ’ (vii) The appellant also claimed that the flat purchased in the joint name is in fact his exclusive property and the name of the respondent was joined as co-owner only for availment of loan and for taxation purposes. He therefore sought a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from entering into the flat. 4. The respondent denied all the allegations of cruelty made against her and alleged that she had been thrown out of the house on 8th July 2003. It is her allegation that it was the mother of the appellant who would pick up quarrels with her on one pretext or the other and the appellant being under the influence of his mother, would abuse and assault the respondent every time his mother complained against her. Though the respondent was made Director of the company, she was not given any administrative powers or rights, she was merely a signatory and had never received the monthly salary. According to the respondent, there is no real dispute * 5 * between the appellant and her and the real cause of discord between them is the mother of the appellant. In her written statement, the respondent sought maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month and also the order of injunction to restrain the appellant from selling the flat. 5. The appellant examined himself, his neighbour Hemant and brother Sudhir in support of his case, whereas the respondent examined herself. The trial court appreciated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to establish that the respondent had treated him with cruelty as alleged and found that he is not entitled to a decree of divorce or in the alternative, judicial separation as sought. It also found that the appellant is not entitled to claim that he is the exclusive owner of the flat standing in the joint names of the parties. As regards the claims of the respondent, the Family Court found that she is not entitled either to maintenance or permanent injunction sought in respect of the flat. 6. We have heard the extensive arguments advanced by the counsel for both sides, perused the pleadings, notes of evidence and the impugned judgment. 7. As regards the first instance of cruelty alleged, the Family Court found that the allegations therefor consisted of bald and general statements without any particulars or details. He was also * 6 * unable to make clear statement about his expectations from the respondent in her behaviour with his family. It is the evidence of the appellant and his neighbour Hemant that the respondent used to attend the office of the Company in which she was a Director and the parents of the appellant would remain at home. They were separately cooking their food from the same kitchen. The brother of the appellant also deposed that the joint family got divided because of the quarrels between the ladies in the house and that the respondent did not care for his parents. According to him, his mother and grandmother were ready to share responsibility of the household work, but not the respondent. As against this, the respondent in her evidence stated that she would always try to adjust and co-operate with the mother of the appellant and she had respected his parents right from the beginning. However, the behaviour of the mother of appellant towards her was bad. On detailed scrutiny of the evidence of the appellant, his witnesses and the respondent, the Family Court observed that it appears that there has been discord between the mother of the appellant and the respondent. Though the neighbour of the appellant gave specific instances of discord like the parents of the appellant cooking food separately and the respondent not permitting them to use even a * 7 * small household article like an iron, belonging to her which was kept by her in lock and key, he also stated that he had tried to “ convince the parents of the appellant to adjust with the respondent, but they were not satisfied . The Family Court therefore concluded ” that the appellant had found it difficult to balance the situation of discord between his parents and the respondent. Further, it noted that it was nowhere the case of appellant that he had tried to convince his parents to adjust and accept the respondent. Therefore, the respondent alone could not be blamed for the situation. The Family Court finally held that the behaviour as alleged by the “ appellant appears to be in the normal wear and tear of marital life. It is more of disputes between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law and the petitioner is sensitive about it. There has been no serious allegation against the respondent about her conduct and behaviour. It is not so grave and weighty. . In our opinion, the scrutiny of the ” evidence completely supports the inference drawn by the Family Court on the allegations at serial no. i to iv listed at paragraph “ ” “ ” 3 above. 8. The allegations in respect of the other two instances of cruelty are rather serious. The appellant alleges that the respondent on two occasions threatened to commit suicide, once by drinking poison and * 8 * second time by jumping from the fifth floor. The second instance is of the respondent alleging that the appellant has illegal relationship with one of his close friend s wife. ’ 9. In respect of both the instances, the Family Court found that the evidence brought on record in support thereof was not at all satisfactory. The allegations had been denied by the respondent in the written statement. The evidence of the appellant on these allegations consisted by bald statements without necessary particulars. There was also no cross-examination on the allegations of both the appellant as well as the respondent. Therefore, the Family Court disbelieved the allegations. It was also of the opinion that any threat to commit suicide, if at all given, was in all probabilities, given in the heat of arguments or quarrels and there could be no real apprehension with regard to the threat. 10. After giving it s finding on the individual allegations of cruelty, ’ made by the appellant, the Family Court considered the overall impact of the allegations. It held that the allegations relate only to ordinary wear and tear of family life and would not amount to cruelty in legal sense. It found that the appellant is sensitive qua his mother and therefore is apparently affected by the dispute between the respondent and his mother. None of the allegations made indicate * 9 * that it would be dangerous for him to live with the respondent. We find no infirmity whatsoever with the findings of the Family Court. 11. Both the appellant and the respondent had sought reliefs as regards the flat standing in their joint names. The appellant claimed to be the exclusive owner of the premises, whereas the respondent apprehended that he may dispose of the premises thereby causing prejudice to her. The Family Court rightly rejected the claim of the appellant to the exclusive title of the flat as the flat was admittedly purchased in joint name and the instalments of the loan taken to purchase the flat were being paid from the joint account in which salary of the respondent was credited. It also dismissed the apprehension of the respondent that the appellant may sell the flat stating that question of the appellant s selling the flat does not arise ’ until the respondent is a party to the same. 12. In our considered opinion, the Family Court has dismissed the appellant s petition by giving cogent and convincing reasons and the ’ same does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.) ( A.P. Deshpande, J.)