The husband mentioned in his petition that he met with a car accident in 2009, after which his wife nursed him back to health. The following year they had their first child. However, the same year in 2010, he lost his job due to the recession and started suffering from back and shoulder pain and a skin allergy called ‘ragweed allergy’. The couple then decided to return to India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A month after their return to\nIndia, husband claimed that his wife left for her parent’s home and subsequently\nleft for Canada along with their son. The husband said he began job hunting in\nIndia, hoping his wife would return but in vain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The husband then approached the court for restitution of conjugal rights but his wife failed to appear in the earlier proceedings. Eventually, he filed for divorce petition on the grounds of Cruelty and Desertion and the divorce case was decided ex-parte and dismissed. The Family Court judge observed that the husband’s pleadings and evidence were quite vague.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The petition was uncontested\neven in the High Court. But the bench still refused to grant the husband\nrelief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A division bench of Justices\nUjjwal Bhuyan and Prithviraj Chavan refused to entertain the husband’s appeal\nagainst a Family Court’s order dismissing his petition for divorce under\nsection 13 (1)(ia) (cruelty) and 13(1)(ib) (desertion) of the Hindu Marriage\nAct 1955.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bench observed that the wife’s decision to remain in Canada, where she settled with the couple son’s, is not unjustified or selfish and refused to grant a divorce to a 44-year-old engineer husband alleging cruelty and desertion as grounds for seeking divorce following his spouse’s refusal to join him back in India.

The court perused the woman’s resume detailing about her flourishing career with a pharmaceutical company in Canada to note that the husband could rejoin his wife, especially since it was husband\u2019s idea to settle in Canada for better prospects in the first place. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also observed that\nthe husband did not examine any witnesses to corroborate his claims that the\nwife’s family had threatened him to return her passport, documents and\njewellery in 2011 or they demanded any money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court further said there\nwere no medical records to prove the man couldn’t join his wife for health\nreasons. It added that the husband seems to have created a ground for divorce\nby accusing the wife’s relative of telling him that his wife was not interested\nin keeping any relation with him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bench refused to believe\nthe husband’s claims that he visited Canada twice, but his wife declined to\nmeet him and allowed him to meet his son only after he undertook not to tell\nthe child he was the father. “Had it been the intention of the respondent (wife)\nto sever the marital tie, she would not have allowed the appellant to meet\ntheir son. This is an important aspect of the case indicating that neither the\nrespondent treated the appellant with cruelty nor did she desire to desert\nhim,” the bench said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“We hope that there is still scope for the couple to restore the bond at least for the sake of their child” the bench observed. The bench thus held that the couple’s marriage has not reached a stage of such deterioration that it is beyond repair, especially since their son is still young and could be a bond between the couple to reunite them once again. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the present case, the couple, two budding engineers were deeply in love got married on January 5, 2004, in Mumbai, after an eight-year-long courtship. They obtained Canadian citizenship after the husband immigrated for better prospects in 2003, and the wife followed on a spouse visa. The husband mentioned in his petition that he metRead more about SPOUSE STAYING ABROAD FOR CAREER NOT ‘CRUELTY’ OR ‘DESERTION’ \u2013 BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span>[…]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/408"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=408"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/408\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":411,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/408\/revisions\/411"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=408"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}