Partly allowed

Sanjivkumar Bhagvatprasad Inamdar (Trivedi) v. Jignaben Wife of Sanjivkumar Bhagvatprasad

Gujarat HC10 Sept 2026X-OBJ/93/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a dismissal of a divorce petition. The appellant successfully established the ground of desertion, leading to a decree of dissolution of the marriage. Additionally, the monthly permanent alimony was increased to Rs. 20,000, and it was ordered that the respondent remain a nominee for retrospective pension benefits despite the divorce.

What did the court decide?

Decree of divorce granted on the ground of desertion; monthly permanent alimony modified to Rs. 20,000 to be deposited in wife's bank account; respondent retained as nominee for pension benefits.

Sanjivkumar Bhagvatprasad Inamdar (Trivedi) Vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Gujarat HC (2026)

¶1

C/FA/1535/2015 (GJHC240422462015) JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1535 of 2015

¶4

With R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 93 of 2015 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1535 of 2015

¶5

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶6

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

¶7

and

¶8

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

¶9

================================================================

¶10

Approved for Reporting Yes No

¶11

=============================================================== SANJIVKUMAR BHAGVATPRASAD INAMDAR (TRIVEDI)

¶12

Versus JIGNABEN WIFE OF SANJIVKUMAR BHAGVATPRASAD

¶13

================================================================

¶14

Appearance: MR CB DASTOOR(238) for the Appellant MR HM PARIKH(574) for the Defendant MR RASESH H PARIKH(3862) for the Defendant

¶15

===============================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

¶17

Date : 10/09/2026

¶18

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

¶19

The instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1884, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2015 passed by the Family Court, Ahmedabad in Family Suit No. 878 of 2000, whereby, the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by decree of

¶20

Page 1 of 8

¶21

C/FA/1535/2015 (GJHC240422462015) JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2026

¶22

divorce has been dismissed.

¶23

The brief facts of the case need to be referred as under:

¶24

(1) The appellant marriage of the husband with respondent wife took place according to Hindu customary rights and ceremonies on 29.01.1989 at Ahmedabad. They lived together and blessed with 2 sons namely Vedant and Jay. The appellant husband did not want the second child and on this issue, dispute arose between the parties. It is the case of the appellant that, due to quarrelsome nature of the respondent wife, the matrimonial dispute in a petty issue arose and despite of so many attempts, she did not have changed her conduct and attitude. It is further case of the appellant that, on 03.08.1992, to attend the birthday of her brother, the wife left the house and since then, she never returned back to the matrimonial home to fulfill the marital obligation. Thus, after period of 7 years from the date of leaving house by the wife, the appellant husband instituted the suit for divorce mainly on the ground that he was treated with cruelty by the wife and she deserted his company for a continuous period of 2 years from the date of filing of the suit.

¶25

(2) The suit was contested by the respondent wife inter-alia denying the averments of the plaint. The allegation of cruelty and the ground of desertion being specifically denied by the wife and further alleged that, the husband appellant was not interested to live with her and she was compelled to live with her parental home because of harassment caused to her by the appellant husband.

¶26

Page 2 of 8

¶27

C/FA/1535/2015 (GJHC240422462015) JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2026

¶28

(3) The Family Court, on the basis of pleading framed the issued at Exh. 30. Before the Family Court, the appellant husband and the respondent wife themselves stepped into witness box at Exhs. 28 and 43. The Family Court, after hearing the parties and upon appreciation of the evidence, held and observed that, the wife was not guilty for the breakdown of the marriage on the ground of cruelty, as the husband has miserably failed to prove the ground of cruelty alleged to have been caused by the wife upon him. On the issue of desertion, the Family Court has observed that the husband has not shown his ready and willingness to bring back the wife with him at her maternal home and therefore, the ground of desertion as alleged being not accepted by the Court and accordingly vide judgment and decree dated 07.07.2015, the suit for divorce came to be dismissed.

¶29

The appellant husband being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Family Court, has preferred the present Appeal, inter-alia , stating that, the trial Court has materially erred in not properly appreciating the evidence and failed to appreciate that the wife has deserted the appellant husband without any reason and since long, both the parties have not stayed together and marriage seems to be broken down completely without any fault.

¶30

We have heard learned counsels Mr. C.B. Dastoor and Mr. Rasesh Parikh, for the respective parties.

¶31

Page 3 of 8

¶32

C/FA/1535/2015 (GJHC240422462015) JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2026

¶33

Mr. Dastoor, learned advocate, while assailing the impugned judgment and order, mainly seeks divorce on the ground of desertion. The marriage took place in the year 1989, the since 1992, the husband – wife have not stayed together, as a result, the appellant had filed present suit for divorce in the year 1999 and after establishment of Family Court, the suit came to be transferred and re-numbered with the Family Court, Ahmedabad. In the first round of litigation, the decree of divorce in favour of the appellant husband came to be passed on 28.09.2007. The respondent wife challenged the decree by filing First Appeal No. 3021 of 2008. In the First Appeal, after hearing the parties, the matter was remanded to the Family Court and directed to decide a suit fresh on its own merits by permitting the parties to lead additional evidence. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, the Family Court, vide its judgment dated 07.07.2015 was pleased to dismiss the suit. Since 1992, the parties are not living together and having regard to the conduct of the wife, she was not at all interested to live with the husband and no attempt was made by her to resume cohabitation and as such there is no reasonable cause for her to leave the house of the husband and as such there is no evidence led by the wife on this issue. Thus, the appellant husband succeeded in establishing the ingredients of desertion.

¶34

Mr. Dastoor, learned advocate upon instructions, states that the appellant husband is ready and willing to increase the monthly amount of permanent alimony to the extent of Rs.20,000/- p.m.. At present, as per the direction of the Family Court, the husband is

¶35

Page 4 of 8

¶36

C/FA/1535/2015 (GJHC240422462015) JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2026

¶37

paying monthly permanently alimony at Rs.12,000/-. Thus, having regard to the duration of the separation and conduct of the wife, the Family Court, ought to have passed a decree of dissolution of marriage.

¶38

On the other hand, Mr. Rasesh Parikh, learned advocate has fairly admitted that, since 1992, the parties are not staying together and having regard to the age of the both – husband and wife, he contended that the court may consider plea of divorce subject to revision of the amount of permanent alimony. He would further urge that, the wife is living in religious institution and having regard to the age of the parties, her name shall be nominated as a ‘nominee’ for the pension and other retiral benefits.

¶39

We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records and proceedings along with the impugned judgment.

¶40

Having regard to the facts of the present case and evidence on record, the issue falls for our consideration as whether the Family Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for divorce on the ground of ‘desertion’ under Section (13)(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act ?

¶41

We are conscious about the fact that, the suit for divorce was originally filed on two grounds i.e. cruelty and desertion. It is fairly conceded by the counsel appearing for the appellant that the ground of cruelty is not established and therefor, only on the

¶42

Page 5 of 8

¶43

C/FA/1535/2015 (GJHC240422462015) JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2026

¶44

ground of desertion, he is seeking a relief for dissolution of marriage. In the facts of the present cased, since 1992, the parties are living separately. Upon careful examination of the oral evidence of the parties, it appears that the decision of the separation on the part of the wife was without any reasonable cause and therefore, there has been no resumption of matrimonial cohabitation for approximately 40 years and more. The age of the appellant husband is about 67 yrs and wife is running about 65 yrs. The reasons offered by the wife for living separately are not satisfactory to hold that due to the atmosphere created by the husband appellant she has reason to refuse to live with the husband. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the Family Court, that the appellant failed to establish desertion is not born out from the evidence on record and has committed an error while coming to conclusion that the ground of desertion has not been established.

¶45

Consequently, the appellant has established the ground of desertion and is entitled to decree of dissolution of marriage.

¶46

In the facts of the case, the order of permanent alimony monthly at Rs.12,000/- has not been seriously challenged by the appellant husband. Admittedly, the appellant husband is getting Rs. 45,000/a pension amount, against which, the wife respondent has no independent means for her livelihood and she is dependent on maintenance amount. Thus, considering the positive attitude of the appellant, giving consent in increasing the amount of permanent alimony to the extent of Rs.20,000/-, we are of the view that, the

¶47

Page 6 of 8

¶48

C/FA/1535/2015 (GJHC240422462015) JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2026

¶49

amount of permanent alimony is required to be modified to the extent of Rs.20,000/- p.m. Thus, the appellant husband is directed to pay monthly permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- from the date of this order instead of Rs.12,000/- p.m. The wife having a Saving Account with State Bank of India, Balasinor Branch (Account No. 30583903141). The appellant husband is directed to deposit the monthly alimony directly in the bank account of respondent wife. It is also agreed by the appellant that, the wife would be sole nominee in the service records and he will not change the said status and further assured that, despite of dissolution of marriage, the respondent wife will entitle for pensionary benefit and other retiral benefits.

¶50

For the reasons recorded, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 07.07.2015, passed by the learned Family Court in Family Suit No. 878 of 2000, rejecting the prayer of divorce is hereby set aside. The marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent wife dated 29.01.1989 is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of desertion and so far as permanent alimony is concerned, the order of the Family Court granting Rs.12,000/- is modified and altered to the extent of Rs.20,000/- p.m. The appellant husband is directed to pay monthly Rs.20,000/- towards permanent alimony from the date of this order. The appellant husband shall directly give deposit monthly alimony in the saving account maintained by the wife with State Bank of India, Balasinor Branch (Account No. 30583903141). The

¶51

Page 7 of 8

¶52

C/FA/1535/2015 (GJHC240422462015)

¶53

wife is entitled as a ‘nominee’ for retiral benefits including pension etc.

¶54

Accordingly, the Cross Objection No. 93 of 2015 is partly allowed.

¶55

There shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to transmit the records and proceedings, if any, to the trial Court.

¶56

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

¶57

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)

¶58

P.S. JOSHI

¶59

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/09/2026 17:23:33

¶60

Page 8 of 8

Sanjivkumar Bhagvatprasad Inamdar (Trivedi) v. Jignaben Wife of Sanjivkumar Bhagvatprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjivkumar Bhagvatprasad Inamdar (Trivedi) v. Jignaben Wife of Sanjivkumar Bhagvatprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases