:3 THE HIEE SOUR? G? KARNA$AxA AT BAEGRLORE DATED THIS $33 9" DAY 0? JANUERE, 2989 FRESENT: THE HQN'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MRNJULA cHg;LޤgW17J
%ND
Tag HON’BLE MR. JUSTECE fi.S:_P$CHfiA§U§£u¢ ,_?
MESCELLANEOUS FIRST Ap@ggg No afiéa
BETWEEN:
Padmanfiaii, zfi
W/O. L.S.Narayana Redéy;–.’
Aged absat 29 years, 5′ V
Rfat N@.2, Raviprakashnagar,*.i
Konena Agxahara;,f– 3 ”
Airpart Road,[V [V_ 7 . _ _,V
Bangaiore–E5U ¥i7f*,>’p} “,_ KV,C…. A?PELLRNTfS
{By His. Pgamiia fiesargi & fissocs. %dvs.}
_ AND:
‘}VL;S,N@:a§a3&*Reddy,
‘Sf§.”Suryamarayana Raddy,
Aqadiabaut 3éfy@a:s,
R/EQLBX1, 3@ Grass,
Singanayakafiahalii,
BafigaiQr§j56O S32. … RESPGNBENT/S
éwiriz
This MF§ is fiied uffiec. 28 0f the Hindu
:»Mafriage Act, Efw. 89$. 1% of the Famiiy Caurts Act,
” against the’ Judgment. dt. i2.Gé.G2, passed inT M.C.
«No.i32f§§, 05 th@ file of the Z &fidi. ?am:ly Judge,
Bangalare, allowing the Appiicaticn fiiad ufs.
since August 1998 and on 26.09.1998 when her husband
had gone to his shop at about 5.30 p.mi;llshe
telephoned him and asked him to take her» to ‘the,
clinic. Her husband pleaded inability and asked herl tv
to go to the clinic on her own to take injecting andi
on that day he found that she eas not happy during\
the night and on the next day in tfie.mornin§{5t”%.oo”
a.m., she left the house yoluntarily.t The husband
further alleges that lhisi’Qifewufiled3_a complaint,
making false allegations and thet he has been charge
sheeted in 44 his Parents
and facing__Vthe.V’– are on the file of
the Chief MetroholitanvMagistrate, Bangalore.
The husband else eileges that her father and
Vuher adnt dare lmakingv threatening telephone calls
tstatisg that they would see that the husband and his
parents: ar*e_”_v~–haindcuffed at any cost and they would
vsee that they will not live in Bangalore in future.
ullelnathe circumstances, it is alleged by the husband
lthat from the first day of the marriage there was
wharassment and cruelty by his wife and that he spent
d”~painful nights through out while she was with him in
the house. He complains that his wife has no
I
husband or parents–in–law. She also states that she
never left the marital home voluntarily on the date
alleged. She states that she was driven out from
the house and having been in helpless position was
throughout treated cruelly with the demandh fotill-
dowry. She had to file a criminal case._ dhe states;
that she was not guilty of any lahses and that shet
behaved like a Hindu Veofian Aand’_fiashflQearingd
appropriate dress in the honeélgnd outside as well.
It is her contention “thatl herd hfi$hand’s intention
was to get divorce andrrenarryisoee other person for
getting more_doerj; ,§he gig; grates that when she
gave birth to the ehild; her husband never came to
see the child._ lQn these grounds, she sought for
_dismissal of the oetition.
lglsoberingllthe enquiry, the husband examined
:Ri_v himself as figflfii, whereas the wife examined herself
Tgg as R.W:l and got marked documents Exs.R1 to R9. Oh
.d”a§preciation of the material on record, the Trial
Court has granted a decree for divorce and aggrieved
uhy”the same, the wife has approached this Court in
llhianpeal. %$:%W
17
the parents–in*law has not been stated with details
and particulars and if really his parents qfiere
disrespected by the wife, they are _thefgbeet*_
witnesses before the court to speak_ about ,the’_ °
disrespect said to have been caased by the wifeil in?
the absence of the evidence ofCpersonefcenCerne&,’
the interested version of P{WglHis oftnevhel@,HW
12. It is relevant to note that the husband is
B.E., Graduate, whereas the Qife*ia E.0om Graduate.
After looking te§§x.Ri; he aaeits.:fiat his marriage
was performea ie,kaiyah; Kai; Mandir on Bannergatta
Road, which liél bier choeitryiflfl .About 3000 persons
gathered daring the earriage. Though there is a
dispute_ as Vto _wh¢g eerformed the marriage by
;Vineurring the exfienees, it is the speeific version
ef the wife*thet_it is her parents, who incurred the
expenses of the marriage. It is relevant to note
it’ that the father of the wife/appellant had gifted a
. “ear’at the time of the marriage and this fact in
.addition to the averment made by the husband and
ufrom his evidence that his wife’s parents are rich,
bfan inference could be drawn that it is the parent’s
of his wife, who incurred the expenses of the
xf
xx