Second Appeal No. 164 of 1996. Case: Lalita Deonath Nimje Vs Deonath Gopichand Nimje. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Second Appeal No. 164 of 1996 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: J.J. Chandurkar, Adv. and For Respondents: N.S. Bhattad, Adv. |
| Judges | C. L. Pangarkar, J. |
| Issue | Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955) - Section 13(ia)(ib); Constitution of India - Article 142 |
| Citation | AIR 2011 Bom 29 |
| Judgement Date | April 15, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
1. This is an appeal by original respondent against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge dissolving the marriage. The parties shall be referred to as the petitioner and the respondent.
2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows Petitioner Deonath and the present appellant were married on 2-2-1987 at Nagpur. After the marriage, original respondent/wife Lalita started living in the matrimonial house at Bhandara and lived for a period of two months. The petitioner's parents live at village Mundhari in Mohadi Tq. of Bhandara District. Petitioner's parents and sisters are agriculturist and are uneducated. They used to come occasionally to Bhandara at the house of the petitioner. His unmarried sister was also residing with the petitioner. After the marriage within three months, the respondent/wife started quarreling with the parents and sister of the petitioner. She used to make use of filthy language against them and insult them. The respondent also wanted that the petitioner should not financially help the parents. The petitioner, however, did not pay any heed to the request of the respondent that his parents should not come to her house. Due to this attitude of the respondent/wife, the petitioner lost the peace of mind. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent/wife without permission and knowledge of the petitioner left the house of the petitioner and went to Nagpur. The petitioner went there but was insulted. A month thereafter, the respondent came to the house of the petitioner herself. The respondent/wife was then taking education and she made a request to the petitioner to allow her to complete her education and assured that after the education is over, she will come and stay permanently with the petitioner. The petitioner allowed the respondent to complete the education. The petitioner also wanted to open his own clinic at Bhandara under the name and style 'Nimje Clinic'. The said clinic was opened on 6th September, 1987 in the presence of the respondent/wife. The petitioner always used to provide money to the respondent while she was living at Nagpur. She was advising the petitioner to close the Nimje Clinic and open a clinic at Nagpur. The petitioner was reluctant to do so. Respondent later became pregnant and delivered of a female child on 7-3-1988 at Nagpur. The respondent unwillingly agreed to come to Bhandara for naming ceremony of child, which took place on 29-5-1988. She lived at Bhandara for 45 days and due to quarrelsome nature again started...
To continue reading
Request your trial