Smt M Geetha vs Sri B A Bheemaraj
2022 Latest Caselaw 3926 Kant

                             1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                  M.F.A.No.9405/2017

BETWEEN:

SMT. M. GEETHA
W/O B. A. BHEEMARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT No.19, 5TH MAIN,
9TH CROSS, KRISHNAPPA BOCK,
GANGANAGARA, BANGALORE 560032,

AND ALSO WORKING AT &
AS HEAD MISTRESS,
SHESHADRIPURAM MIDDLE SCHOOL,
NAGAPPA STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE 560020.                           ... APPELLANT

(By Sri Doddathammegowda, Adv. for
    Sri Shankarappa. S., Adv.)

AND:

SRI B. A. BHEEMARAJ
S/O C. R. ARERANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.955, 11TH CROSS,
1ST BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGARA,
BANGALORE 560079.                      ... RESPONDENT

(By Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar, Sr. Counsel for
    Sri Sreedhar, Adv.)
                                   2



      This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
19(1) of the Family Court Act r/w Section 28(1) of the Hindu
Marriage   Act,   against   the   judgment   and   award   dated
05.09.2017 passed on M.C. No.3854/2013 on the file of the
4th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru,
allowing the petition filed u/s.13(1)(ia),(ib) of the Hindu
Marriage Act.


      This appeal coming on for Final Hearing, this day,
Vishwajith Shetty J., delivered the following:


                            JUDGMENT

1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the wife

challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2017

passed by the IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court,

Bengaluru, in M.C.No.3854/2013, wherein the petition filed

by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the

purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the marriage of the

appellant-wife with the respondent-husband was solemnized

on 27.11.1986 at Bengaluru and from the said wedlock, two

children by name Eshwar Prasad and Vishal were born to the

couple. The husband and wife were both employed. They

lived as husband and wife till the year 2000 and for the last

more than 20 years, they have been residing separately.

3. The husband filed petition under Section 13(1)(ia) &

(ib) of the Act, with a prayer to dissolve the marriage

solemnized on 27.11.1986, contending that ever since the

marriage, his wife was always quarrelling with him and his

family members and was insisting him to set up a separate

residence and stay away from his parents. Therefore, he was

compelled to purchase a house in the year 1991 and only for

a short period the couple lived in the said house along with

their children. The wife allegedly left the company of the

petitioner-husband abruptly on 03.12.2020 along with her

household articles. It is also averred that thereafter, she filed

a false criminal case against the petitioner and his family

members for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the

petitioner and his family members were tried for the alleged

offence in C.C.No.20040/2003 before the jurisdictional

Magistrate and ultimately, they were acquitted. It is also

averred that thereafter she filed a false criminal complaint

alleging that the petitioner-husband had forged her signature

in her cheque leaves and even the said case was

subsequently dismissed. The respondent-wife had also filed

O.S.No.87/2001 seeking maintenance from the petitioner

though she was working as a Headmistress in a Government

Aided School and the maintenance awarded in the said suit

was being paid by him regularly. Subsequently, the

respondent-wife who had voluntarily deserted the petitioner

also had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, seeking

restitution of conjugal rights and the said petition was

dismissed after contest on 03.04.2013.

4. The respondent-wife had entered appearance before

the Family Court and filed her statement of objections

admitting the relationship, but had denied the rest of the

allegations made against her by her husband. She had

contended that inspite of there being a decree for

maintenance, the husband was not regular in paying the

maintenance amount. She also contended that since she

intended to join his company, she had filed the petition for

restitution of conjugal rights and she had given hostile

evidence in the criminal cases filed by her. Though the

petitioner had assured that he would join her company after

disposal of the criminal cases, he has not taken her back. She

has also stated that the children are in need of love and

affection of the parents and accordingly, prayed to dismiss

the petition.

5. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, he

had examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 18 documents

as Exs.P-1 to P-18. The respondent-wife got herself examined

as RW-1. However, no documents were marked in support of

her defence. The Family Court, thereafter, heard the

arguments on both the sides and vide the impugned

judgment, allowed the petition dissolving the marriage

between the petitioner and the respondent. Being aggrieved

by the same, the respondent-wife has preferred this appeal.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that

the Family Court erred in allowing the petition and granting a

decree of divorce. He submits that the wife had earlier filed

petition under Section 9 of the Act, which would go to show

that she was always intending to lead a normal family life

with the petitioner, but it is the petitioner who was always

fighting with her. It is also submitted that the criminal cases

filed by the respondent-wife were not effectively prosecuted

by her on the assurance that the husband would be taking

her back. But thereafter, he has not kept up to his promise

and the Family Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of

the matter and has erred in allowing the petition.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-husband

has submitted that the parties are living separately for the

last more than two decades and the children are admittedly

settled abroad. She also submitted that there is no purpose in

continuing the marriage when the parties have no respect to

each other and they are not in a position to live a cordial life.

She submits that the Family Court, having appreciated that

the wife was in the habit of filing false cases against the

husband and his relatives, has rightly allowed the petition and

the said order does not call for any interference, and

accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.

8. We have carefully appreciated the arguments addressed

on behalf of both the parties and also perused the material

available on record.

9. Petitioner-husband has examined himself as PW-1 in

support of his case and he has got marked as many as 18

documents. He has narrated in detail about the various cases

including the criminal cases filed by the wife in order to

harass him and his family. The copies of the order sheet, the

deposition and judgment in various such proceedings have

been produced and marked to substantiate his case before

the Family Court. The Family Court, having appreciated that

the wife has repeatedly filed criminal cases against the

petitioner-husband, has held that the said conduct of the wife

would clearly amount to cruelty. The Family Court has also

appreciated the fact that the petition for restitution of

conjugal rights filed by the wife was dismissed earlier on the

ground that she herself had deserted the company of her

husband without there being any valid reasons. Therefore,

the ground of cruelty as well as desertion was proved by the

husband before the Family Court by producing oral and

documentary evidence and the Family Court having

appreciated the same, has rightly allowed the petition filed by

him for dissolution of marriage with the respondent by a

decree of divorce.

10. It is also not in dispute that the couple have been living

separately for the last more than 20 years and their children

have now completed their studies and settled abroad. The

marriage between the parties is virtually dead and the

material evidence available on record would go to show that

they have been fighting against each other before various

courts for the last more than two decades. At this juncture,

no purpose would be served in keeping the marriage alive.

The efforts made for conciliation of the parties before the

Family Court as well as before this Court have all failed and

the parties have failed to arrive at an amicable settlement.

11. The learned Judge of the Family Court having

appreciated the material evidence available on record has

held that the petitioner has proved the ground of cruelty as

well as desertion as against the respondent and has

accordingly allowed the petition. We find no illegality or

irregularity in the said judgment passed by the Family Court,

and therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE KK