PRAVIN VIJAY PANPATIL Vs. SUREKHA
LAWS(BOM)-2018-12-249
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on December 22,2018

Pravin Vijay Panpatil Appellant
VERSUS
SUREKHA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HARSHA BHOJANI V. INDRAKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
RAVI KUMAR VS. JULMI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA PAL VS. BALA [REFERRED TO]
PRANEEN MEHTA VS. INDERJIT MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYKUMAR RAMCHANDRA BHATE VS. NEELA VIJAYKUMAR BHATE [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYKUMAR RAMCHANDRA BHATE VS. NEELA VIJAYKUMAR BHATE [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN KOHLI VS. NEELU KOHLI [REFERRED TO]
NAUTAM PRAKASH DGSVC VADTAL VS. K K THAKKAR [REFERRED TO]
SAMAR GHOSH VS. JAYA GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
RAVI KUMAR VS. JULMIDEVI [REFERRED TO]
HARSHA INDUKUMAR BHOJANI VS. INDUKUMAR RATILAL BHOJANI [REFERRED TO]
K. SRINIVAS RAO VS. D.A. DEEPA [REFERRED TO]
M VS. M [REFERRED TO]
MALATHI RAVI VS. B.V. RAVI [REFERRED TO]
K.SRINIVAS VS. K.SUNITA [REFERRED TO]
LILESH VS. VINOD RAMRICHPAL AGRAWAL [REFERRED TO]
MANGESH BALKRUSHNA BHOIR VS. SAU. LEENA MANGESH BHOIR [REFERRED TO]
SUDIPTO BANERJEE VS. MRS. RENUKA BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)All these appeals filed by a husband against his wife in three matrimonial proceedings involve common questions of law and facts. These are commonly heard and decided by the first appellate Court by common judgment. These are commonly argued before me and therefore I am disposing them of by this common judgment.
(2.)The facts relevant for deciding these appeals may be stated as follows: The appellant - Pravin is serving at Mukti, Tq. & Dist. Dhule as a teacher of medium school. His father was Assistant Commissioner in Tribal Development Department, Nashik and his mother was a Primary Teacher at Dhule. On 22/1/2005, Pravin married to the respondent - Surekha and thereafter they started cohabiting at Dhule. Surekha's maternal house is at a distance of about 10 minutes walk from her matrimonial house. Surekha is M.A. B.Ed. The parties cohabited together from 22/1/2005 to 11/4/2006 and thereafter they separated, when Surekha was in 7th month of pregnancy. Out of the wedlock, Surekha gave birth to a daughter named Purva (Respondent No.2) on 3/7/2006. On 12/5/2005, Surekha suffered termination of pregnancy. On 11/9/2006, Pravin issued notice demanding divorce. Surekha sent reply dt. 21/9/2006 and offered to cohabit with Pravin. These facts are not in dispute.
(3.)On 5/10/2006, Pravin filed HMP No. 218/06 in the court of Civil Judge Sr. Divn., Dhule for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As per the petition, Pravin and his parents were serving and Surekha used to be alone in the house. She was having responsibility to look after the house and show proper respect to her matrimonial relatives but she used to go to her maternal house 3 to 4 times in a week and whenever Pravin and his parents used to come home, they used to see their house locked. They were required to make search for Surekha or to wait for her on the platform outside the house. Whenever Surekha was accosted about her behavior, she used to raise hue and cry by coming out of the house. Whenever Pravin or his mother used to come to house early, they used to find Surekha in the company of her friends, both male and female. She was not taking cognizance of their arrival and used to continue to enjoy the company of her friends. Pravin and his relatives in order to avoid defamation of the family, used to keep quiet. Whenever Surekha was accosted about the same, she used to make counter allegations and used to threaten them that she would commit suicide by immolation and would send all of them in jail. She used to raise shouts as if she was being assaulted. Her behaviour was causing mental cruelty to Pravin and his mother. Whenever Pravin objected to her frequent visits to her maternal house, she used to cut off talks with him and his relatives. Pravin alleged that, on 12/5/2012, she consumed tablets and without intimation to him and his parents underwent medical termination of pregnancy. On 11/4/2006, in the 7 th month of pregnancy of Surekha, Pravin's mother performed religious function to welcome the expected child and thereafter Surekha on her own went to her maternal house and on 3/7/2006, she gave birth to a female child. This news was not communicated to Pravin and his parents. In order to take revenge and cause cruelty, she filed FIR u/s 498A IPC against Pravin and family members with the SP office, Dhule. Pravin and his parents were called at S.P. Office and Surekha by her behavior created terror in their minds at the S.P. Office. Considering the facts, Pravin came to the conclusion that, divorce was the only alternative and therefore he issued notice dt. 11/9/2006. Surekha sent a false reply and hence the Divorce Petition came to be filed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.