i) The learned counsel for appellant, to substantiate his case, relied on the following decisions:
a) In Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur , the Honble Supreme Court dealt with the expression cruelty in the context in which the said expression has been raised in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. The requisite ingredients for constituting cruelty have been mentioned in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 thus:
From the aforesaid, it is evident that any relief which is available under Sections 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act from the Magistrate may also be sought in any legal proceedings, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent, whether such proceedings were initiated before or after commencement of the Act.
The learned Judge of the Family Court has lost sight that recording
of evidence with the help of electronic methods and techniques is
acknowledged and recognized in the judicial system. In the case of
Amitabh Bagchi vs, Ena Bagchi (supra), wife was in India and husband remained in U.S. When there was an issue of maintenance between the parties, the husband made application before the Court for examining him through video conferencing. The Court has allowed the Application and also gave directions when the evidence was to be recorded by video conferencing by the trial Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.405 OF 2013
Smt. Kalawati Balasaheb Karne … Appellant
Smt. Chanda Hanmant Karne & Anr. … Respondents
In the case in hand, a widow filed a suit for partition obviously
claiming her share through her deceased husband. In the wake of the revolution for emancipation of women and for recognizing their rights as human beings equal to the males in respect of the properties in Hindu family, I think depriving a widow simply because no other coparcerners demand partition would clearly be destructive of the movement. This court would like to consider the said larger question.
Kalawati_Balasaheb_Karne.pdf (111.8 KiB)
ZENOBIA GHADIALLY vs. MEHROUZ GHADIALLY (PARSI CHIEF MATRIMONIAL COURT AT BOMBAY, PARSI SUIT NO. 13 OF 2009)
In my summing up to the delegates, I asked that they each bear in mind while considering the facts what it is that is said to constitute ‘cruelty’ as a matrimonial wrong. This is a term that lends itself to no complete or exact definition. It lends itself to many interpretations, each fact-dependent.
Where there is evidence of a course of conduct sufficiently grave, beyond the vicissitudes of daily life, as would make it unreasonable to expect the complaining spouse to live with the other, cruelty must be held to have been established.
The Bombay high court has directed a Vile Parle resident to return the jewellery he had gifted to his former wife at the time of their wedding as it was a part of her streedhan.
Dismissing Prakash Sawant’s application, a division bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Revati Dere upheld a family court order asking him to return the streedhan or pay the value of the ornaments at market rate to his former wife, Savitri.
That takes us to consider the issue of Stridhan and the maintenance. The word “Stridhan” includes gifts made to the wife at the time of marriage by her parents, brother, inlaws, husband etc. She is absolute owner of her Stridhan property and she can deal with it in any manner she likes. In the event of divorce or desertion, she is entitled for her Stridhan and her claim in respect thereof, if proved, must be allowed and necessary directions to return the same must be issued by the courts. In the present case, there is no dispute that the certain ornaments were gifted to the appellant by her parents in the marriage, as stated by her in her written statement and in her evidence. The respondent has also deposed that some ornaments were gifted by him at the time of marriage to the appellant. The appellant in her written statement and in her evidence, however, has made reference only to the ornaments/gifts made by her parents as Stridhan. There are six articles, mentioned in paragraph 11(O) of the written statement and in paragraph 23 of her deposition, as Stridhan. She has not claimed ornaments/gifts made by the respondent in the marriage as Stridhan.