HC rejects bizman’s plea against vacating home in divorce case

Pune: The Bombay high court has rejected a prominent businessman’s petition against the Pune family court’s order of December 13, 2017 that directed him to vacate his matrimonial home, off the University Road, in an ongoing divorce proceeding.
The estranged couple (names withheld) have two daughters — aged 17 and 13 years — and a 10-year-old son. The husband heads a Rs200-crore company, supplying parts to an automotive major.

The family court had also restrained the husband from re-entering the house for six months and prevented him from committing any domestic violence with the wife and the children. In his petition before the high court, the husband claimed that the impugned (under challenge) order had caused severe prejudice to him.

Justice G S Kulkarni of the high court cited the pleadings by the either side and the material placed on record and held in a recent order, “I am of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence on record for the (family) court to come to the conclusion that the conduct of the petitioner amounted to domestic violence.”

Lawyer Abhijit Sarwate, representing the woman, told TOI on Monday, “We have moved two fresh applications under the Domestic Violence Act, seeking the family court’s directions to punish the husband for breach of protection orders passed by it and the high court.”

In her plea, the wife narrated instances of her husband’s abusive and violent behaviour, which even caused a knife injury to her right index finger and injury to her left ear due to slapping in November last year. These occurred in the presence of their children, she stated, adding that they were staying as strangers in separate rooms despite staying under one roof. She said her husband resorted to domestic violence after she filed the divorce petition.

The man denied all the allegations and insisted that despite the divorce petition, the couple were enjoying conjugal bliss and even took foreign tours with their children, to Sri Lanka, Baltic, France and Russia in 2015, the United Kingdom in 2016 and Europe in 2017. There are allegations related to transfer of 1.5 lakh shares in his company from the wife’s name to his mother’s name and counter-charge of the wife having withdrawn Rs3 crore by redeeming a mutual fund and transferring the amount in her bank account.

The high court bench referred to the medical report related to the injuries suffered by the woman and evidence in the form of messages exchanged by her and her daughter, showing that the children were complaining to the mother about their father harassing them. The bench observed that the husband’s claim of normal matrimonial bliss was also not correct as they were staying in separate rooms and stayed separately even during foreign trips.

“This is not the case where the petitioner (husband) would be rendered homeless. The petitioner is a businessman and is well placed in life and has more than sufficient means to take care of all his needs,” the bench said.