1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE ':;2?''' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 20m
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE K.L.MANJ_UNATH»A./,::' A
AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ABTMANOHAARAA " A
MFA.No.5239 OF"'v§::G06 (Tc;
BETWEEN: A A A
T.C.P.Veeresh, -- V j
S/o.T.ChandrashekaI',-- V --
Aged about 38 yearsfi. r -.
Assistant, -A
Corporation 4' _
R/o 3"' Main, 3.I'<"* '
D.No.221, Municipal
Chitradurga. A ... APPELLANT
Aflvocate)
H.DayaVathi, ' T
' "'\7\/'/ 0.T.C;--P.Ve.<:resiT,
/o.Late I-I,K..IiiaVnumanthappa,
" " ~Aged"'atbout 3.1" years,
«j.'v'TMafa1thi"Krupa"S.S.Layout,
3/"
F"-J
Behind Laxmi Fiour Hills,
Davanagere. RESPONDEN.'F,_g
(By Sri.G.N.Chandrashekar, Advocate}
MFA filed U/s. 19(1) of the EC Act;""agair§'stv"_th.§ i'
Judgment and decree dated:
MC.No.11/O6 on the file of the
Davanagere, dismissing the petitiorifiied ii/._s.' "{iFo) of V
the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking decries_o£_Vdivort:e»._
This MFA having beeniiheardsarid and coming
on for pronouncement' of Jti1dg'e'1iien't'««t1w_'i_s BJWANOHAR
J., delivered 'V i
L " (1.1) N T
Appellantdidiisththeiipetitioner in M.C.No.11/2006. Being
'c'1:.f'_«'§g'_-'§1"1'.v€_3V53'di_j.§\'133/2*'Lithée j1idg:a:.I..ent and decree dated: 17.4.2006
paVssed.V.ir:--V,/2006 by the Family Court, Davanagere
e».._fi.ied th'1s.'appeai':--v'gi
xiv
3
2. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13(1](ia)
and (ib) of the Hindu marriage Act. seeking for dissol1itioi:._'of
marriage solemnized on 14.4.2000 between the pe_titi'on.er..: _
the respondent. T he petitioner has contended that " it
is his legally wedded Wife and their i”.nar_r’ia3§el’ret.ool{“‘place’
14.4.2000 in Sharnanur Shivashankarappa i3Vai%{athvandnia-.000′
Kalyana Mantapa at Davanagere asliper=.t_heir’cnstorris in the
presence of the elders and it l:is-an_ arran¥g:ed’lrnarriage. Out of
the wedlock a fempalecu chi.idV”‘u?g.sl.”born 06.2.2001. The
petitioner has tha_t_«_:the rfeslpondlent used to quarrel
with him a separate house at
Mysore. Sheunirasl the petitioner and his
family rneinbersltii at she “file a complaint before the police
h’arassrnent. On becoming pregnant, she went
to for delivery a.nd thereafter she never
l’v.:ll”‘ti;rned b–a_ckv_f:o thelmarital house. An effort was made by the
his family members to bring back the
._:”‘respondent to the marital house. but did not materialize. It is
4
aileged that she failed to attend the marriage of the
petitioners brother. At every stage instead of co~opuerl_a’ting
with the petitioner she has caused harassment’
petitioner. Without any reasonable cause shei—-ha:s.,dde:serte_:d
the petitioner. Since 2001 she was=..:1iv:ingg3
house. in View of the harassment “and deVsett.i.on. their’
petitioner has filed a petition seeking”-for–divorCe.l_ V
3. in pursuance to the .no.tice issued the Fainily Court,
the respondent entered into’ filed her
objections levelled against her
interalia contending at the behest of his
mother has_Vfi1edl’a Vpet.i.t’ion*.sforidivorce and her mother–in–law
llllllheliilrespondent, at no point of time
misbehrivled the petitioner or with other family
or purpose of delivery she had been to the
” ‘dpareiital and thereafter, the petitioner failed to take her
-tovthne marital house. She also contended that with an
A/«
5
ulterior motive. the present petition has been filed and sought
for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner.
4. Initially the above petition was filed
Judge (Sr.Dn), Chitradurga and the sarne ‘w
MC.No.14/2004. In View of the order m._ad.e inp’\22.r’rit
No.16266/2005 by this Court t1*ie”–.J3.1atterlvvaVs transferred so
Family Court, Davanagere. _ ‘4
5. On the basis of the ple_a”d_ing;s of i”thVe.vlparties, the Family
Court framed the following ht
(1) ,_’pe:ti’tioner proves that the
resvppo11dentVhad,_ cruelty to him’?
[ii]p_.;:’V\ll’i€tl”i6’1′.__V_the petitioner proves that the
V . respondentvhad deserted him?
T’ vs’-1’i.ether the petitioner is entitled to a
it deereeof (11% gz/e’?
6
(iv) In the event. if a divorce is to be granted as
sought for then to what. extent the”—._
respondent is entitled to have permani?_nt..f”p:’-VT:”‘-,
alimony? and
(V) T 0 what order and deere_e….th_e p_a.rti”es’_’;vaVr”e
entitled to’?
6. In order to prove the ease, the petitioner ha,s”e)<;'arrr.inepd"–.V
himself as P.W.1 and aiso examinlevdianother.iivitneslsyissh PW2
and got marked the documentsi»Atéi's" Thevreslpondent
examined herself as R.W.l l three other
Witnesses and documents as Ex.Rl and
EXR2.
on the basis of the oral and
ied by the parties held all the issues
against Vl”the.«_”: ‘petitioner and consequently dismissed the
‘by the petitioner by its judgment and decree
ll’7.”v.t:dzi:ed’t;w.VV1’7′; 21.2006.
/59¢
7’
8. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by
the Family Court the appellant preferred this appeal.
9. Sri.Ko.Vijay Kumar, Advocate appearirig’
appellant submitted the judgment ‘c1Il.dfA'(fl’t;’CtI”E3tl§l’
Family Court, Davanagere is oontr’ar_yl’–_tAo ‘Theft
depriving the husband, the pleasure”of mar’ried.failedlll
to resume herself to C0″l=1abitatilon,”; itself isl”‘enough to
constitute cruelty. Therefore.’Athe”judgnient_’passed by the
Family Court run ‘:’:ontralty down by the
Hon’ble Suprenie”inl”a_:ju_dgrnent reported in AIR 2005
so 3297 in eeseiiettiiieeeei PRASANNA TRIPATHY
v,/,s_ARiJ«Ii§oi«iAT1 He further submitted that in the
guise respondent went to the parental house
in the -year thereafter, she never returned back to
marital housle and there is no cohabitation from the year
An effort was made to bring back the wife to the
house by the elders and it was ended in failure. The
/’N,
wife had deserted the husband for more than five years.
Hence the court beiow, Without examining all these aspe’cts.._of
the matter dismissed the petition, which is eonptralry
and sought for setting aside the judgn_”_u::nt_ and”deoreelllp-alssedy K”
by the Family Court.
10. On the other hand V/{dvoeate
appearing for the respondent the date of
marriage the respondent’ house as
dutiful wife house for the
purpose of that rnother–in–Iaw
did not like «at the behest of motherin-
iaw the petitioner’ back this respondent to the
rriavrit.alA Iifle that at no point of time the
respondentrt with the petitioner or any of the
l:i,:”fa’mily the petitioner. On the other hand, the
” of the petitioner amounts to cruelty to the wife hence
‘sought fordismissal of the appeal.
/iv
9
11. We have carefully gone through the argunients
addressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
judgment and decree passed by the Famiiy Cou.-‘*t Aorai ._
and documentary evidence of the parties. 3
12. It is not in dispute that th’e..__marriage of va_ppe’llant_:ti»
and respondent was solemnized at:l)a\fanagere.
Out of the wedlock, a female’ childgp’waaboivn an 26,2,20()1_
There is no allegationV.against–vth:e and only
after giving child others started
making allegation.s.v_V that she did not
returned Further she failed to
attend the thel”‘appellant’s brother because of
tlie€’relauti\’es olfl thelappellant were looking suspiciously
towardsthe The allegation of the appellant is that
respo_nderit_vl3:vas demanding him to set up a separate
she will come and join him and she was
that she will foist a police case alleging dowry
/fiv’
H}
harassment. The appellant in his evidence has admitted that
the respondent was sent to her parental house when vshellwas
pregnant of 5 1/2 months. After so going to the parerits H
the respondent gave birth to the mehild ,0-hti4.ii_j:9+’t§}2o0i;
Further, the appellant himself has :iad1nitt?ed’ee.i.n..’l1i4sVer.oss’»d
examination that they lived happily tilllshe
parental house for deliver._ The appellant lfitrthervvvfadmitted
that the respondent contin’ued.,to sftayu parental house
and insulted the petitioner” But, the
appellant has not towstate as to what is
the nature of ‘to:”hae1*A respondent.
13. On the otherihand,A’*thé” respondent contended that she
theappellant till she went to the parental
hotisell for a dutiful wife. After giving birth to a
xvfemaled«::hild.,~ ~t’_h}ellappel1ant has not taken her back to the
“”l.-1’i.ti1ari»t.a1p house and she has also contended that due to ill-
19w11~200l. she Could not attend the marriage of
X»
11
her brother–in–law. To support her evidence, she has also
produced E3x.R1 and Ex.R2 to show that as on l9–1_l’–l.éGQl,
she was taking treatment. in the hospital due to_””ili–{he_alt:h.”«_
She had no intention to avoid the marriage of-her: ._
law and due to unavoidable circumstances, ‘she. V”eoul:d..__1’3ot
attend the marriage. She also*c_on_tende.d’
and willing to join the marital ho1.1_s_ie’.-..:_Ho_vve\./er.the appellant
has refused to take her ‘the.p’muarital’ihouse. Further,
she has contended that wher1″then1.atter pending before
the Family Cou1___’t–; -retevrreldmto conciliation. In
the conciliaition appellant has refused to take
her back to ed
14. As could s’een~._fro,m”the petition averrnents, nowhere
i_n'”~the the llavppcllant has pleaded cruelty except
stating tha_t” of the respondent amounts to cruelty
anything about the physical and mental
..l.l.l’_;’cr.1.ielty suffered by him so also with regard to desertion.
appellant alleged that the respondent has
A
%«
12
insulted his mother when she went to see the newly born
child, he has not examined his mother, to prove thlelsaid
contention. There is no iota of evidence to show;”‘thatj _
was physical and mental cruelty on the appe_i1ant,:j~.. W
person to speak about the insult is his m”o.ther,.lblu’t ‘s’ii:e..’_hiiVsrl
not been examined. in the absence of thesan1ie:,l’the._Vcase of
the appellant cannot be There’ specific
pleading regarding harassnient_ that from the
year 2001. the respon-dent parental house
and no such a decree of
divorce eith’e’rmu’nder ll}w(ia}land (ib) of the Hindu
Marriage any such pleadings and the
evidence, ‘the the appellant will not come
pnrvieyv Section 13(1}[ia) and (ib) of the Hindu
We”««.are___”of.the opinion that the appellant has miserably
4″”failed topmake. out a case for divorce. There is no irregularity
t_he_llj’u(llgmer1t passed by the Family Court, Davanagere.
L
13
We find no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed.
V ii. (I
mpk/–*
sa/~