Observing that a woman who filed three criminal cases against her husband would be fully aware of the legal procedure, the Bombay High Court refused to set aside a divorce decree granted by the Family Court due to her non-appearance during the court proceedings.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sharmila Deshmukh rejected a wife’s claim that she was illiterate and a victim of wrong legal advice, moreover that it was the court’s duty to secure her presence.

“The Appellant had knowledge of the legal procedure, having filed three criminal cases. In the present case, the Appellant – wife chose not to remain present despite summons having been served, and the Appellant thereafter cannot be heard to argue that it was the duty of the Family Court to force her to remain present,” the High Court bench observed.

The couple got married on May 26, 1986 and had three children from the wedlock. The husband filed for divorce in the Family Court alleging mental cruelty in 2006. He accused his wife of having an affair with another man. He claimed that after “abusing and humiliating him,” she left the matrimonial home in 2003.

Summons were issued to the wife to appear in the matter but she refused to appear. The Family Court Judge noted that a case was made out for divorce and, accordingly, on 17 December 2007, the decree of divorce was granted.

The wife then filed an application for setting aside the order of divorce, which came to be rejected by the Family Court in 2008. These two orders were then challenged before the High Court.

“After waiting for almost six months, the family Court had no option but to proceed further and grant the decree of divorce. We do not find any error in the view taken by the learned Family Court Judge,” the High Court said.

The bench noted that the wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 11 December 2006. She then filed an application for maintenance and another criminal case in the same Court under section 498A, 506 Part-II read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Despite this, when the Family Court issued numerous summons to her between June 2007 to December 2007 she did not attend on even a single date and her husband’s petition came to be allowed. In its order the Family Court Judge also noted that the husband had remarried, and no case for fraud is made out against him.

The husband informed the court that the woman has been co-habiting with her paramour in Gujarat and is pursuing the present proceedings against him only to harass him.

In view of the above situation, the appeal of the wife was dismissed by High Court.

Case Title: Rohini Raju Khamkar V/s. Raju Ranba Khamkar