1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6246 OF 2017 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.R.JANARADHANA BABU
SON OF RANGASWAMAIAH
AGE: 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT JAYANAGARA EAST
TUMAKURU CITY-572 101.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI:V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE(VC))
AND:
SMT.E.S.LAKSHMI
WIFE OF R.JANARDHANA BABU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
NOW RESIDING AT ITTIGE VILLAGE
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-561 203.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.07.2017 PASSED IN
2
M.C.NO.148 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 13(1)(i-a) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, FOR
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, M.G.UMA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment dated 12.07.2017 passed in MC No.148 of 2015 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru filed by him under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the HM Act" for the sake of brevity), against the respondent praying for dissolution of marriage between them.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner had married the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 28.07.2012 at Taralabalu Sri.Jagadguru Shivacharya Kalyana Mantapa, Beerur of Chikkamagalur 3 District. After the marriage, the respondent joined the petitioner in her matrimonial house and they have begotten a girl child on 28.01.2014.
4. The case put forth by the petitioner-husband is that the respondent-wife was not giving respect to him, his parents and other family members as she is arrogant. The respondent used to pick up quarrel and used to leave the matrimonial house to visit her parents home, very frequently. It is also alleged that the respondent is having illicit relationship with one Mr.Harish, in Ittige village and therefore, the dignity of the family of the petitioner is at stake. It is also contended that the respondent had not chosen to return to the matrimonial house after her second delivery, however, she was persuaded to come back. The respondent insisted for a separate accommodation and accordingly, a separate house was arranged. But within a week, the respondent deserted the petitioner and returned to her parents house along with the child, clothes and jewellery. Even though a panchayat was convened, the 4 respondent refused to join the petitioner. The legal notice was issued by the petitioner calling upon the respondent to join him in the matrimonial house, but the respondent did not complied with the same. Therefore, petitioner contended that the respondent is not willing to continue marital relationship. She has treated him with cruelty and deserted him without any valid reason. Therefore, he is entitled to a decree of divorce in the interest of justice.
5. The respondent appeared before the Trial Court and contested the matter denying all the allegations. It is contended that the petitioner cheated her by stating that he is a Central Government Employee working as Officer in the Income Tax Department, drawing salary of Rs.40,000/-, but after the marriage, it was revealed that he is unemployed. The petitioner himself was harassing and treating the respondent cruelly. A false allegation of illicit relationship is being made and that he was demanding for Rs.1,00,000/- to secure him job. The petitioner also pledged gold ornaments of the respondent 5 and received Rs.60,000/-. The petitioner is addicted to bad vices and he is alcoholic. The respondent was not allowed to enter the matrimonial house and she was manhandled by the petitioner, his mother and sister. The petitioner himself had deserted the respondent. The respondent had issued notice seeking restitution of conjugal rights and she had also filed complaint against the petitioner under the Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the DV Act" for the sake of brevity) before the learned JMFC at Tarikeri. As a counter blast, the present petition came to be filed without any basis. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 in support of his contention. The respondent had not chosen to cross examine PW1 nor did she let-in any evidence in support of her defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had 6 not proved his contention taken in the petition and therefore, he was not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly, the petition came to be dismissed.
7. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Trial Court, the present appeal is preferred on various grounds.
8. Heard Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri.B.Pradeep, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
9. It is the specific contention of the petitioner who is the appellant herein that the respondent had treated him with cruelty and deserted him without any reasonable grounds. Several allegations are made against the respondent in support of his contentions and it is also contended that the respondent is having illicit relationship with another person and therefore, she is not interested to return to the matrimonial house. The Trial Court has taken into consideration the affidavit dated 20.04.2015 sworn to by the respondent before the notary, Tumakuru produced 7 by the petitioner as per Ex.P5, wherein, it is stated that the respondent after receipt of the legal notice dated 16.03.2015 issued by the petitioner had returned to the matrimonial house to lead marital life. The Trial Court also noted that this fact was suppressed by the petitioner and contended that the respondent had never returned to the matrimonial house and she was not interested in the marital relationship. It is noted by the Trial Court that general allegations were made against the respondent that she was arrogant and not respecting the petitioner and his family members and also deserted him without any reasonable cause. Even though PW1 was not cross examined by the respondent, the petition came to be dismissed for want of specific averments and proof thereof.
10. We do not find any support to accept the allegations made in the petition and to allow the appeal. There must be specific instances of cruelty caused to the petitioner by the respondent to attract Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The bald and general allegations made by the 8 petitioner against the respondent is not sufficient to prove his contentions. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merits. However, it is submitted at the Bar that even the respondent may not be interested in continuing the marriage at this length of time as the spouses are residing separately since several years. However, that cannot be a ground to allow the appeal.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
However, the dismissal of this appeal will not come in the way of parties seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-