Judgment:
M.K. Mukherjee, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated September 17, 1991, passed by the learned Family Court, Pune, granting a decree for judicial separation in favour of the respondent on the ground of cruelty on an application filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce against the appellant-wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
2. The respondent initially married one Kunda Chafekar and of that marriage two sons namely, Sandip and Samir were born. After she died on August 1, 1980, the respondent married the appellant on May 16, 1981 at Pune. At the time of the second marriage, the respondent's two sons by the earlier marriage were aged about 14 and 7 years.
3. According to the respondent, the appellant behaved properly with him and his two sons for a few days after marriage. Thereafter she started putting pressure upon him to live separately after sending his two sons to a boarding house. As the respondent did not yield to her such pressure, she left the house and started living with her parents. Subsequently, she was brought back to her marital home. She, however, did not change her habit and continued to neglect the respondent and his sons. The appellant who was working as a teacher and had left the job to live in the matrimonial home again joined her services at Shirur and started working there as a teacher. She, however, again came back to her marital home but after some time, again left for her parents' home. According to the respondent, she used to make unfounded allegations against him and his two sons and frequently raised quarrels with them. The respondent averred in his petition that the appellant ill-treated both his sons as also him and he detailed instances of such ill-treatment in the petition.
4. In contesting the petition, the appellant denied the accusations made against her. According to her, it was the respondent and his sons, who were indisciplined, used to ill-treat and misbehave with her. She contended that when she tried to bring discipline in the house and for that purpose, used to admonish the two sons, they started insulting her for which she had to leave the house an join her services as a teacher at Shirur in June 1983. She further contended that the respondent did not show any love or affection towards her, nor did he cohabit with her.
5. In support of his case, the respondent, besides examining himself, examined Rukmini (P.W. 2) who was working in his house as a cook at the material time and his elder son Sandip (P.W. 3). The appellant, in her turn, examined herself, her sister-in-law Sharda (R.W. 2), Govind Narayan Wagh (R.W. 3), Secretary of the school where she used to teach, Rajani (R.W. 4), a teacher of the said school and Vishnu (R.W. 5), one of her acquaintances.
6. We have carefully gone through the evidence adduced by the above witnesses and on perusal thereof, we have no hesitation in upholding the finding of the learned Family Court that the respondent has been able to make out a case of cruelty against the appellant. The evidence of the respondent shows that the appellant did not like that the sons of the respondent should stay with them and that they wanted an exclusive life for themselves. His evidence further shows that she used to give threats to him to file complaints if he did not behave according to her wish. It also shows that she used to give threats to commit suicide. The evidence of the respondent gets ample corroboration from that of Rukmini (P.W.2) and his son Sandip (P.W. 2). P.W. 2 testifies that there were frequent quarrels between the appellant and the respondent as she did not like the sons of the respondent. She further stated that the appellant did not take care of the respondent's sons and used to leave the house without taking his permission. There is nothing in her cross-examination to indicate why she would depose falsely nor could anything be elicited in cross-examination to discredit her assertion that the appellant misbehaved with the respondent and his children. We also do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of Sandip, the son of the respondent who has also spoken about the persistent ill-treatment of the appellant and her frequent threats to commit suicide. Besides, his testimony shows that the appellant was insisting upon a claim over the ornaments of his mother for which she had to file a suit. The evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent unmistakably makes out a case of cruelty against the respondent.
7. As regards the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant, we need not consider that of R.W. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as they did not speak and could not have spoken about the happenings in the house of the respondent and for that matter, the incidents that had and could have taken place in the marital home. Coming now to the evidence of R.W.2, we get that she found the atmosphere in the house of the respondent disturbed and she tried for reconciliation on one or two occasions. Her evidence, therefore, does not in any way contradict the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent. That brings us to the evidence of the appellant. She has, of course, tried to put the entire blame on the marital discord wholly on the respondent and his two sons but then, having regard to the evidence of the cook and the elder son, which we have already discussed, we are unable to rely upon the same. This apart, we find that the appellant had written a letter to the respondent on February 24, 1990 (Exhibit 27) wherefrom it appears that the appellant made a demand for transfer of the premises in question in her name and also made a demand for return of ornaments as also a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month for her maintenance. She stated in that letter that only if those demands were met, she was ready to stay separately. It will thus be seen that the appellant's primary interest was to have the ornaments and to live separately from the children.
8. On the conclusions as above, we dismiss this appeal, but without any order as to costs.