Sri. R. Janaradhana Babu vs Smt. E. S. Lakshmi
2021 Latest Caselaw 492 Kant

                          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

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

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

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

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

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

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/-