MUMBAI: A Malad resident's plea for divorce from his doctor wife who had left her matrimonial home 16 years ago was thrown out by the Bombay high court after it came to light that the couple was having a sexual relationship even while the husband's plea for separation was pending.

A division bench of Justice Vijaya Kapse Tahilramani and Justice P N Deshmukh said that Neeta Shah's claims that she was willing to live with her husband Jayesh if they bought a separate house, and that he used to insist on having physical relations with her, had gone unchallenged.

"[From] the evidence, Neeta appears to have taken the necessary steps to save her marriage. However, Jayesh has not responded to her," said the bench. "On considering the facts, and particularly the unchallenged version of the wife, we do not find that she, at any time, had any intention to end the cohabitation. On the contrary, we find that during the pendency of the divorce petition, and even after rejection of an earlier petition filed by Jayesh, from January 2003 till May 31, 2009, [they] were enjoying conjugal relations from time to time."

This was Jayesh's second attempt at getting a divorce. His first petition had been rejected by a family court in 2002.

Jayesh and Neeta had got married in February 1997, but they lived together for barely a year. In April 1998, Neeta moved into her parents' place

. In 2000, Jayesh filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, but the family court rejected his plea.

He filed another petition for divorce in 2009, but the family court again rejected it. Jayesh then challenged the order in the high court.

Neeta claimed that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had ill-treated and physically abused her, forcing her to leave her husband's house. She claimed her in-laws had demanded jewellery and a car among other expensive items in dowry. Neeta told the court that she was willing to return to her husband if he bought his own house.

She also said that between 2003 and 2009, Jayesh used to often call and text her seeking sexual relations and would threaten her that he would visit commercial sex workers if she would not agree. Neeta said that as she did not want him to contract sexually transmitted diseases, she agreed to have physical relations with him and both their families knew about it.

(Names changed to protect the couple's identity)

