S.A. No. 135 of 2009. Case: Shobha Mhatardev Lomte Vs Mhatardev Tukaram Lomte. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | S.A. No. 135 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Y.S. Choudhari, Adv. and For Respondents: L.B. Palod, Adv. |
| Judges | K. K. Tated, J. |
| Issue | Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955) - Section 13 |
| Citation | AIR 2009 Bom 160 |
| Judgement Date | June 26, 2009 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
-
Present Second Appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 24-08-2006 passed by the 4th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in R.C.A. No. 217/2001 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28-03-2001 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, S.D. Ahmednagar in H.M.P. No. 140/1997.
-
The appellant, the original plaintiff and the respondent, original defendant married on 26-11-1987 at Rahuri as per Hindu religious rites and custom. After the marriage, the appellant had been to the respondent for cohabitation and for a few days, she was treated well by the respondent. Thereafter, as the respondent is Professor, he insisted the appellant to have further education and insisted the appellant in the year 1988 to go to Aurangabad for completing her M.A. It is the case of the appellant that as Aurangabad was inconvenient place for the appellant for completion of her M.A., she requested the respondent to allow her to complete M.A. at Ahmednagar, as it was convenient for her. Because of her said suggestion, the respondent got annoyed. All along the respondent insisted that the appellant should go to Aurangabad only for further studies. She started residing with the respondent but the respondent started harassing her and used to beat and ill treat her on flimsy grounds. The respondent suspected her character. It is the case of the appellant that on flimsy grounds, the respondent refused to cohabit with the appellant. In the month of July 1994, brother of the appellant aith other relatives went to the house of the respondent to remove the differences between the appellant and the respondent, as that they might lead happy married life but the respondent flatly refused to cohabit with the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant waited for some time in the hope that the respondent might allow her to cohabit with him. But, on 6-8-1994 the respondent issued a false and frivolous notice to the appellant and same was replied by the appellant on 16-08-1994. In the said reply, the appellant had specifically informed the respondent that she was ready and willing to cohabit with him, but the respondent did not turn to Rahuri factory to take her to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the appellant sincerely made efforts through her brother and relatives but all efforts of the appellant, her brother and relatives failed.
-
It is the case of the appellant that with mala fide intention and just to harass the appellant, the respondent filed H.M.P. No. 86/1994 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malegaon under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal...
To continue reading
Request your trial