1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY C IVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2010 Hiralal Manilal Ghatad .. Appellant. V/s. Bharati Hiralal Ghatad .. Respondent. Mr. V.M. Parkar for the Appellant. Smt. Flavia Agnes with Ms. Dolly Mendonca for the Respondent. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : 7TH JULY, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We have perused the pleadings and evidence on record. We have also carefully considered the judgment of the trial Court. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court on the factum of cruelty caused by the husband to justify the decree of divorce. The petition graphically sets out the circumstances and events which necessitated the wife to stay separately from her husband from February, 2005 onwards. In paragraph 16 of the petition it is stated that attempt was made by the Caste Committee, so that the parties would reconcile and stay together. In deference to the said decision, the wife 2 joined the matrimonial home. But on returning to the matrimonial home the situation did not change at all. It is stated that husband continued to misbehave with the wife on several occasions. The circumstances are as aforesaid graphically stated in the petition itself. According to the wife, the husband visited her office and misbehaved. Because of that she lost her job. During the evidence, the allegations made in the petition have been reiterated by wife as is found by the trial Court. The fact that the husband attempted forceful intercourse, has not been challenged at all. We have scrutinized the evidence of the wife. There is no infirmity in the findings so recorded by the Family Court. Even the Counsel for the appellant-husband in all fairness accepts that, the said fact has not been challenged. In any case for the circumstances which followed, in respect of which the wife has deposed to and have been established in evidence, including the fact that wife lost her job because of the behavior of the husband in her office, all these events have been taken into account by the Family Court. That would leave no manner of doubt that the husband caused mental cruelty to the wife and also physical assaulted her. For all these reasons, the decree of divorce in the fact situation of the present case is inevitable. 2 The argument of the appellant is that the trial Court has noticed that the cruelty was condoned by the wife and she started cohabiting with the husband, as is noted in paragraph 13 of the impugned order. Indeed, said 3 observation is found in paragraph 13 of the judgment, however, on going through the pleadings and evidence on record, it is more than clear that the wife joined the matrimonial home on 9th January, 2005, consequent to the decision taken in the Caste Committee on 8th January, 2005. The events and circumstances stated by the wife, which she has deposed before the Court on oath are all subsequent and posterior to 9th January, 2005, which was the cause of frustration. On account of the said development which continued, she started residing separately from February, 2005. As a result, the wife had no other option but to take recourse to remedy of divorce petition. In that sense, it is not a case of condonation of the earlier acts of commission and omission of the husband. Whereas, the wife's claim is founded on the events which are subsequent to 9th January, 2005. Understood thus, no fault can be found with the view taken by the trial Court. In our opinion, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence dismissed. 3. We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the wife that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, wife is entitled for at least the costs incurred by her to defend the present proceeding, which was filed beyond limitation. In terms of our earlier order the husband has already paid sum of Rs. 5000/- at the stage of condonation of delay. However, we direct the husband to pay further sum of Rs. 4 10,000/- to the respondent-wife towards costs of the proceeding before this Court. That amount be paid within 4 weeks from today to the respondent. Ordered accordingly. (A.A.SAYED,J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)