In this second appeal against a decree of divorce, this Court dismissed the petition held a substantial question of law. The Court rejected the claim to reappreciate evidence and dismissed the appeal at the stage of admission.
The second appeal stood dismissed at the stage of admission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-NAG:4932
1 24.sa.10.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
SECOND APPEAL NO.10 OF 2020
Maya Sanjay Akotkar
.VS.
Sanjay Vasantrao Akotkar
_______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.
Mr A. S. Thotange, Advocate for the appellant Ms Ritu Jog, Adv. h/f. Mr A. C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the respondent
CORAM : G.A. SANAP, J. DATE : APRIL 18, 2024.
Heard learned Advocates for the parties at the stage of admission. Perused the record and proceedings.
2 24.sa.10.2020
of the respondent that the appellant resided with him hardly for 38 days. They resided together with their family at Akola. The appellant insisted the respondent to reside separately from joint family. The respondent did not accept this suggestion. The appellant, thereafter, started quarrelling with the family members of the respondent. It is stated that without any cause and reason, the appellant left the matrimonial house and went to stay at Balapur on 28.02.2004. The respondent tried his level best to convince the appellant to join his company, but to no use. The appellant, instead of joining the company, lodged a report with the police against the respondent and his family members. They were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent and his family members have been acquitted. It is further stated that repeated efforts made by the respondent to establish marital relations with the appellant proved futile. The respondent, therefore, filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.
3 24.sa.10.2020
his family members in the said criminal case. However, the appellant contended that she was subjected to cruelty. There was a demand of dowry. She was therefore constrained to leave the house of the respondent and stay with her parents. In short, she denied the grounds of desertion as well as the cruelty pleaded by the respondent.
4 24.sa.10.2020
evidence as well as to properly apply the provisions of law to the facts and evidence and have come to an erroneous conclusion. Learned Advocate submitted that the failure to properly appreciate the evidence has resulted in perversity and as such, the appeal involves a substantial question of law. Learned Advocate took me through the record to support his submissions.
5 24.sa.10.2020
Prohibition Act. It has come on record that after a full dressed trial, the respondent and his family members have been acquitted. It is the contention of the respondent that the prosecution was malicious and due to said prosecution, he was subjected to mental pain and agony. It was cruelty to him and his family members. He has further stated that despite making sincere efforts, the appellant did not respond positively and joined his company and cohabit with him.
6 24.sa.10.2020
proceeding filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where she stated that she is not willing to cohabit and reside with the respondent and is also not ready to give a divorce. The Courts below have found that, on the ground of cruelty and desertion, there was a breakdown of the marriage.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
Namrata
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of the Courts below regarding desertion and cruelty were erroneous and required reappreciation of evidence.
Whether a second appeal involves a substantial question of law requiring interference on the evidence adduced below.
Whether the appellant's filing for restitution of conjugal rights barred the decree of divorce.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maya Sanjay Akotkar
Sanjay Vasantrao Akotkar
G. A. Sanap
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
