Karnataka High Court
Pramod Kumar H M vs Bhuvaneshwari M on 10 October, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M. ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4298/2019 (FC)
BETWEEN:
PRAMOD KUMAR.H.M,
S/O MRUTHYUNJAYA.H.C,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.83, 2ND FLOOR,
1ST STAGE, 5TH PHASE,
60 FEET ROAD,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 044.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BHUVANESHWARI.M,
W/O. PRAMOD KUMAR.H.M,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO.235, 2ND STAGE,
BCC BADAVANE,
9TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.PHALAKSHAIAH., ADVOCATE)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.03.2019 PASSED IN
M.C.NO.2860/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED
U/S.13(1)(I-A)(I-B) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 01.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS
DAY, JAYANT BANERJI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) The aforesaid appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2019 passed by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in MC No.2860/2013.
2. The appellant herein being the petitioner (husband)1 in the aforesaid MC 2860/2013, had filed the same under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,19552 against the respondent (wife) for grant of divorce. By means of the impugned judgment and order, the petition filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by the Family Court. 1 petitioner 2 HM Act, 1955 3
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that cruelty was afflicted on the petitioner by way of desertion by the respondent. It is stated that the respondent kept on going to her parents' house, but refused to return to the house of the petitioner and threatened him with a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 20053. It is stated that the father-in-law of the petitioner had threatened him and therefore, the Family Court was not justified in dismissing the petition for divorce.
4. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh4 with reference to Paragraph-109 thereof to contend that since there has been a long period of continuous separation it has to be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair and by refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases does not preserve the sanctity of marriage. It has been stated that the aforesaid judgment in Samar Ghosh's case has been followed by another Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavita5. 3 DV Act 4 (2007) 4 SCC 511 5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 497 (Paragraph 20 thereof) 4
5. The learned counsel for the respondent (wife), on the other hand, referred to the cross-examination of PW.1, who was the petitioner himself. It is contended that, no case was lodged against the petitioner by the respondent. However, no maintenance has been paid by the petitioner. The child born from the wedlock of the petitioner and the respondent is studying in 10th Standard and no alimony has been received for her education. At present the respondent is without work. It is urged that, in case the appeal of the petitioner/husband is allowed, alimony had to be awarded to the respondent as well as the expenses incurred by the parents of the respondent at the time of her marriage.
6. In the rejoinder, the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has stated that the memo has been filed regarding source of income of the respondent, which showed that the respondent has no good source of income and therefore, no maintenance is to be awarded to her.
7. On perusal of the judgment under consideration reflects that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 04.06.2009 at Rajarajeshwari Kalyan Mantap, Rajkumar Road, Bengaluru, which was registered on 03.04.2010 before the Registrar of Marriages, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, and through their wedlock, a girl child was born. It is alleged in the petition that, the respondent, her parents, uncle of the petitioner and parents and relatives forced the petitioner/appellant to agree for the marriage and threatened and, emotionally blackmailed him into agreeing for the marriage. 5 The petitioner did not want to marry as he was in financial difficulty. However, since pressures were exerted on him by his own parents as well as the respondent's parents, he married. It is further stated that, after the marriage, the respondent started abusing the petitioner to take a good job and without any reason, the respondent would leave him and go to her parents' house and not returned for days. If the petitioner tried to contact the respondent on phone, her father would abuse the petitioner in filthy language and make false complaint to the petitioner's parents, who in turn instead of listening to petitioner, would abuse him further. The respondent was rude to the petitioner and she would sleep for long hours and failed to do any household chores and never bothered to cook food and would do her office work on the laptop at home also. The petitioner's mother, who was 57 years old, would cook food, which the respondent ate, but she never used to help her in the kitchen. It is alleged that the respondent would insist that every day the petitioner should drop and pick her from the bus stop, which is hardly 100 meters from the house. If the petitioner failed or refused due to any other emergency, she would behave very aggressively and also commanding the petitioner. It is alleged that the respondent was insisting to bring fruits every day and in case by any chance, there were no fruits in the house, she would create a scene. Though the respondent is also working and earning, but would refuse to spend money for the same. The petitioner had a dog for which he would buy eggs. The respondent used to throw away the 6 eggs kept for the dog, and on confrontation, she would fight bitterly with the petitioner. It was further alleged that she used to insist him to accompany her for shopping and if he refused, she would behave badly and would threaten to file false dowry harassment case. It was alleged that, after conceiving, the respondent went to her parents' house in the 7th month of pregnancy and even after delivery, she failed to return to the petitioner's house till the baby was of one year old. Threats of filing false cases and for dowry harassment and domestic violence and claim for compensation of Rs. 5.00 Crore were raised, whereas the petitioner had never demanded or received any dowry from the respondent. Attempts by the petitioner to save the marriage were made and even went and stayed with the respondent in her parent's house for around one month. In her house, the petitioner used to be threatened by her family members. It was alleged that the respondent was not staying with the petitioner for the past three to five years and despite several requests made by him, she failed to lead a happy married life. The petitioner even got legal notice issued to the respondent on 26.07.2011 asking the respondent to join, but, the respondent neither joined nor replied the notice.
8. Contrarily, the respondent filed objections statement denying the allegations made by the petitioner. She however, admitted the solemnization of marriage and said that the petitioner had given false information stating that he is M.Tech and working in a good Multi National 7 Company. Three days prior to marriage, the petitioner demanded Rs.3,50,000/- and the expenses incurred by the parents of the respondent of Rs.12,00,000/- during Varopachara and other functions. It was stated by the respondent that marital situation was one which does not amount to cruelty by the respondent, but the respondent is a victim of cruelty and harassment by the petitioner, which was supported by her other family members. It was stated that, even then the respondent was ready and willing to join the petitioner. The petitioner had not cared to provide livelihood to the respondent nor her child and it is clear evidence of his irresponsibility. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. On the other hand, the respondent was examined as RW.1 and got Exs.R1 to R4.
9. The points that arose for consideration of the Family Court are as under:-
i) Whether the petitioner proves that he was subjected to cruelty and harassed by the respondent?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce?
iii) What order?
The Points 1 & 2 were answered in the negative.
10. The Family Court noticed that the petitioner had reiterated the petition averments in his affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in- 8 chief. The PW.1 had denied the suggestion with regard to cruelty by him to his wife. It was noted that the petitioner did not remember when the respondent gave birth to the child; he also did not know the age of the child; he did not remember whether he had mentioned the date of birth of the child in his chief examination affidavit; at the time of engagement function, he had no job; it was true that his mother possessed the properties; he did not know as to how many months pregnancy the respondent had when she went to her parents' house ; he admitted that the respondent used to go to office by bus, and volunteered that he was not dropping her on his two wheeler and therefore, she used to quarrel with him; the respondent voluntarily left the house after five months of the marriage; the respondent is pure vegetarian; the respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner; he admitted that his own parents had lodged a complaint against him and it further volunteered that since the respondent used to fight/quarrel with him and called the police, his parents had prevented him from coming into the house for lodging the complaint. He admitted that, he used to go to the respondent's parents' house and return; he admitted that, he own two sites in Electronic City and that he could get good job anywhere; PW.1 volunteered that he did not intend to 9 do any work and he was not doing private work also and he was working in a company in a responsible position.
11. The Family Court observed that the evidence of PW.1 reflected that, the petitioner was a lazy man and it could be said, he is not a responsible husband, as during cross-examination, he had deposed that he did not remember when the respondent gave birth to the child. He did not know the age of the child and that he did not remember whether he had mentioned the date of birth of the child in his examination-in-chief. It was held that the admitted testimony of PW.1 does not hold any water to the allegation that there was cruelty committed by the wife, as no supporting material was placed before the Court. It was noted by the Court that RW.1 had deposed that, she is ready to re-join the petitioner and that it is the petitioner, who had subjected her to cruelty, mental torture and harassment. The respondent admitted that, she had no document regarding payment of cash of Rs.3,50,000/- to the petitioner as also regarding the marriage expenses of Rs.12,00,000/-, She used to go to her mother's place on the date of Mangala Gowri Vratha itself and used to return to her matrimonial house on the same day. She used to leave home for office at 7.30 hours in the morning and used to return home around 7.00 'O' Clock in the evening. During cross-examination, RW.1 10 deposed that, it was false to suggest that she mentally and physically harassed the petitioner and deserted him. She stated that she was not allowed to return to the matrimonial house. After looking to the evidence on record, the Family Court observed that the instances of cruelty cited by the petitioner could not be relied on to prove the cruelty because, they were deemed to have been condoned by the acts of the parties. So far as the instances alleged after the marriage, are being isolated instances, did not constitute an act of cruelty, the Court held that the isolated incidents alleged to have been occurred prior to filing date of petition, could not furnish a subsisting cause of action to seek divorce after lapse of few years or so of occurrence of such incidents. There is no proximity with such instances to the filing of the petition. It was held that, it was highly improbable that the respondent was involved in the allegations as alleged. The testimony of PW.1 as regards the evidence of cruelty/desertion could not be considered as trustworthy. There was no evidence led by PW.1 to show that whether he had sought for visitation rights pertaining to his daughter. The Court held that the husband/petitioner used to be idle when going to attend job, even though admittedly he is educated and well-qualified. He even abandoned by not maintaining. It was held that the allegation of wrong doing of wife 11 cannot be fastened and it could not be the wife/respondent was involved in the cruelty as alleged. It was observed that the actually it s the husband who was involved in the desertion. It was observed that the proceedings which are being initiated against the respondent cannot be accepted, particularly, on the basis of the sole evidence of PW.1. The petitioner was thus held not entitled for the relief as sought, as it appeared from the perusal of the evidence that it was the petitioner who withdrew from the respondent's company. without there being any reasonable cause to do so. The petitioner had failed to make out any case of cruelty against the respondent.
12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the aforementioned Point Nos. 1 & 2 were answered in the negative. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the HM Act,1955 was dismissed.
13. The original record has been perused. The PW.1 had stated that he is not intending to do any work and he is not doing any private work also, despite saying that he had worked in various Companies in responsible positions. He has stated that, he did not remember when the respondent gave birth to the child and he also did not know the age of the child. He did not remember whether he had mentioned the date of birth of the child in his examination-in- 12 chief affidavit. He admitted of his mother possessing properties and that after marriage, the respondent resided in his house for a period of five months. He did not know as to how many months pregnancy the respondent had, when she went to her parents' house. He admits that the respondent used to go to office by bus and that he was not dropping her on his two wheeler and therefore, she used to quarrel with him. It was true that the respondent was a pure vegetarian. He admitted that the respondent had not lodged any complaint against him and that his own parents had lodged a complaint against him. He voluntarily stated that, since the respondent used to quarrel with him, his parents called the police and by lodging a complaint, they had prevented him from coming into their house; when a query was posed to him that the respondent was ready to join him, even on that day, the PW.1 answered that, at this stage, he was not interested to lead a marital life with her. He further admitted that, he owned two sites in Electronic City.
14. From the evidence of PW.1 himself, no clear case of cruelty or desertion is reflected. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the isolated incidents of cruelty which have been cited, have no corroboration, and cannot be given credence. The tenor of the testimony of the PW.1, as correctly observed by the Family Court 13 reflects that it was the petitioner, who had deserted the respondent, and not the other way around.
15. As far as the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are concerned, clause (xiv) of Paragraph-101 of the judgment in the case of Samar Ghosh, which dealt with illustrative instances of human behavior which may be relevant in dealing with the case of "mental cruelty", reads as follows:-
"101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
Clauses (i) To (xiii): xxx xxx xxx
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."14
xxx xxx xxx xxx
16. Though we are in respectful agreement with the illustration provided by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment of Samar Ghosh, however, the facts and circumstances of the instant case are different. The period of continuous separation as observed above by this Court, is not on account of the respondent deserting the appellant, but, it is the other way around. This judgment therefore, is of no assistance to the appellant. The judgment in Rakesh Raman also follows the judgment in Samar Ghosh and therefore, that judgment too is of no assistance.
17. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGR