Full Judgment
T.K. Chandra Shekhara Das, J.
1. By the impugned judgment, a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty was granted by the 2nd Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No. A-607 of 1994. The appellant-husband married with respondent-wife on 8-2-1981 as per Hindu Vedic rites. Out of this wedlook, two daughters by name Radhika aged 11 years and Rajasee aged about 6 years. At the time of filing of the petition the main ground of cruelty alleged by the wife was that the respondent is hot tempered and very arrogant. He cannot get along with other members of family including father, mother or brother and he used to have constant quarrels with his family members and therefore they have shifted their residence at Ambernath. Even after the separate living, his behaviour has not improved. Again they have to shift at Virar in May, 1989 where the parties had purchased a flat from their joint income. Appellant continued to behave rudely and this was affecting the petitioner. The circumstances still worse when the appellant resigned his job in July, 1992 without giving a slightest indication to the respondent-wife. After such resignation, ill-treatment and harassment to the respondent and to the daughters was increased day by day it became difficult to respondent-wife and children to sustain inconvenience and harassment by the appellant, example, by emptying the Sintex Water Storage Tank in the house and disallowing them to use Fridge, T.V., Boiler and even the lights when the daughters were studying. It was further alleged by the respondent wife that they were mercilessly beaten without any reason which affected the performance of the children in their studies. Another important complaint made by the respondent is that the appellant had abnormally increased demand for sex. He used to harass and torture her. He further alleged that the appellant also started sending indecent letters to respondent wife's sister. These allegations the allegation are not resisted by the appellant-husband. Even though the salary which she used to receive was given to the appellant, his rude behaviour continued. He used to remain absent in the house for a week without giving any information to the respondent-wife. She used to get tension for these days. It was alleged by the respondent wife that the appellant used to enjoy blue films at odd hours of the night and had compelled her to sit by his side and the respondent-wife suffered extremely and it was almost unbearable for her. It is further alleged by the respondent-wife that the appellant stopped abruptly giving any money to the respondent-wife for maintenance. She also made an allegation that the appellant used to compel her to keep unnatural carnal relations as displayed in photographic books for his satisfaction. He has also made an allegation against her that the respondent-wife has removed Rs. 30,000/- while leaving the house and gold ornaments worth Rs. 5,00,000/-. The appellant has resisted the claim of divorce by denying the allegations. The lower Court has found that in such strained circumstances; the wife tried for reconciliation. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the allegation of cruelty has not been proved and further that allegations levelled against him do not amount to cruelty. We find that the allegation made by the wife against appellant for having resorted to unnatural carnal relationship has not been countered in the examination. In fact, the lower Court has rightly noted that cross-examination is centred around financial aspects of the parties. No attempts were made to controvert the statements made by the wife in her cross-examination.
2. In the circumstances, according to us, the Court has correctly found that the cruelty is established by the wife.
3. As far as the maintenance is concerned, we do not think any interference by this Court is necessary.
4. In the result, we confirm the finding of Court below with regard to the cruelty.
5. In the result, appeal is dismissed. The order of the Court below is confirmed.
6. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
7. Appeal dismissed.