Smt Shruthi Nagaraj vs Sri Nagaraj Krishna
2022 Latest Caselaw 8004 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                          AND

           THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

             M.F.A. NO.3814 OF 2017 (FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHRUTHI NAGARAJ
W/O NAGARAJ
D/O JAYADEV BAGODI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
NO.2, RAMANNA GARDEN
1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS
VIDYARANYAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 097.
                                             ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. YOGESH, FOR
    SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H. ADV.,(P/H)

AND:

SRI. NAGARAJ KRISHNA
S/O K. KRISHNA VARNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A NO.168, R.K. TOWNSHIP
YARANDANAHALLI, OFF JIGANI
BOMMASANDRA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 105.
                                         ....RESPONDENT

(BY   SMT.    BHUSHANI       KUMAR,      ADVOCATE    FOR
RESPONDENT(P/H)
                             2




     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED:01.04.2017 PASSED IN M.C.NO.2122/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 13(I) (III) (A) & (B) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

In this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family

Court Acts, 1984, the appellant-wife has assailed the

validity of the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017

passed by the Family Court, by which, the petition

filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13

(i)(iii)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has

been allowed and the marriage between the parties

has been dissolved on the grounds enumerated under

Section 13 (i)(iii)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955.

2. Facts giving raise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that the marriage between the

parties was performed on 15.02.2009. The respondent

herein viz., husband filed the petition seeking

dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, on 09.07.2010 inter-alia on the

ground that wife is suffering from a mental disorder to

such an extent that he cannot live with her. It was

further pleaded that appellant-wife is suffering from

psychopathic disorder namely schizophrenia and has a

split personality. It was also stated that the wife has

treated the husband with mental cruelty of such a

nature that it has caused him mental agony and

anxiety. It was also pleaded that the appellant is

under medication for mental infirmity namely bipolar

disorder since prior to the marriage. The appellant has

also received treatment for the aforesaid ailment.

Further, it was pleaded that the appellant suppressed

the fact that she was suffering from such an aliment

and did not bring the same to the notice of the

respondent-husband. The respondent further sought

for dissolution of marriage.

3. The appellant-wife filed objections in which

the relationship between the parties was admitted.

Further, the fact that there was no consummation of

marriage was also admitted. It was denied that the

respondent is suffering from any mental disorder or

schizophrenia. It was also denied that she behaved

abnormally and was under medication and treatment

in NIMHANS hospital.

4. The Family Court on the basis of the

pleadings of the parties framed the issues and

recorded evidence. The respondent-husband got

himself examined as PW.1 and one other witness

namely Sri.Shivarama Varambally was examined as

PW.2, whereas Doctor- Sri.Amar Bhavle, was

examined as PW.3. The appellant-wife exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. The appellant

herein in support of her case examined herself as

RW.1 and produced documents namely Ex.R1 to

Ex.R12.

5. The Family Court vide judgment and decree

dated 01.04.2017 inter-alia held that the appellant-

wife was suffering from mental disorder/

schizophrenia and has treated the respondent-

husband with mental cruelty. Accordingly, the

marriage between the parties was dissolved by a

decree of divorce. In the aforesaid factual background,

this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the Family Court ought to have

appreciated the fact that the appellant-wife was not

suffering from any serious mental illness. It is further

submitted that the appellant was put to mental agony

and serious hardship due to attitude of the respondent

in U.K. It is also submitted that the Family Court erred

in terming the mental agony inflicted by the

respondent on the husband as a mental disorder and

that the respondent failed to take care of the

appellant by providing proper medical care. It is also

submitted that the Family Court has failed to consider

the evidence adduced by the appellant in its proper

perspective. On the other hand, learned counsel for

the respondent-husband herein has referred to the

evidence of doctor-Sri.Amar Bhavle- PW.3 and has

submitted that the appellant herself in her deposition

has admitted that she was taking treatment for

mental infirmity in NIMHANS prior to the marriage. It

was further submitted that the judgment and decree

passed by the Family Court is based on the meticulous

appreciation of the records and does not call for any

interference.

7. We have considered the submissions made

by the learned counsel for the parties and have

perused the records.

8. Admittedly, the marriage between the

parties was solemnized on 15.02.2009 and the same

is not in dispute. Dr.Amar Bhavle PW.3 in his

evidence has stated that he had given treatment to

the appellant-wife since the year 2001. It has further

been stated by PW.3 namely, an expert in mental

illness that the appellant-wife was suffering from

mental disorder/schizophrenia as well as bipolar

disorder for which she received treatment from him.

No suggestions have been put to by the aforesaid

witness in the cross-examination so as to render the

evidence of the aforesaid witness unreliable. On the

other hand, it is pertinent to note that the appellant-

wife in her deposition has admitted that she had

received treatment from Dr.Amar Bhavle PW3 since

2001.

9. The appellant-wife in her evidence has also

admitted that she took treatment almost nine years

prior to her marriage and has also admitted her out-

patient record at NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore. The

respondent in his evidence has stated that appellant-

wife used to sing and dance in public places and used

to behave abnormally. From the evidence adduced by

the parties, it is evident that appellant-wife used to

behave abnormally and it is not safe for the

respondent to continue marital relationship with the

appellant. From the evidence of the parties it is

evident that the marriage has not been consummated

and parties are residing separately since December,

2009. The Family Court on the basis of evidence on

record has held that respondent-wife was suffering

from mental disorder and schizophrenia and therefore,

it was not possible for the respondent herein-husband

to lead a happy marital life with the appellant-wife.

The Family Court on the basis of the evidence on

record has held that the appellant-wife has inflicted

mental cruelty on the respondent on account of her

acts influenced by her mental disorder and has rightly

dissolved the marriage between the parties.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any grounds to interference with the judgment and

decree dated 01.04.2017 passed by the Family Court.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RU Ct-nn