Smt Parijatha K vs Sri R Hari
2022 Latest Caselaw 5354 Kant

                              1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.9176/2012

BETWEEN:

SMT. PARIJATHA. K.
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
D/O LATE MR.KESHAVA,
RESIDING AT NO.93,
3RD MAIN, 9TH 'A' CROSS,
PRASHANTHNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 072.                   ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI BEAULA. S. CHANDINI, ADV.)

AND:

SRI R. HARI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O RAJAGOPALAPPA,
R/A NO.123, 2ND MAIN,
K.K.LAYOUT,
NEAR AMBEDKAR COLLEGE,
BANGALORE.

PRESENTLY R/A.NO. 18/5,
3RD CROSS, SANJEEVININAGAR,
MOODALAPALYA,
BANGALORE.

NATIVE PLACE: BUDHIKOTE VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR.                               ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.R.NAGARAJA, ADV.)
                              2

       THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT     AND   DECREE   DATED   21.6.2012   PASSED    IN
M.C.NO.456/2008 ON THE FILE OF JUDGE, 4TH ADDITIONAL
FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED
U/SEC.-13(1) (ia) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.


       THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY,    VISHWAJITH       SHETTY     J.,   DELIVERED      THE
FOLLOWING:


                     JUDGMENT

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the wife

challenging the judgment and decree dated 21st June

2012 passed by the court of Additional Principal Judge,

Family Court-IV, Bangalore, in M.C.No.456/2008.

2. The parties are referred to by their rankings

assigned to them before the Family Court.

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

the purpose of disposal of this appeal are:

The petitioner came to know the respondent when

she was aged about 17 years and she was then studying

in first year PUC. The marriage of the petitioner with the

respondent was performed on 18.10.2006 in

Ramanagaram temple. According to the petitioner, after

she met the respondent they fell in love. After the

petitioner attained the age of majority, the respondent

persisted the petitioner to marry him at the earliest on

the ground that his mother was ailing and she was in her

death bed. On 18.10.2006 without informing any of the

relatives of the petitioner, the respondent took the

petitioner to Ramanagaram temple and married her. He

had not informed the same even to his parents. After

the marriage, the petitioner came back home and she

was staying with her parents.

4. On 10.01.2007, when the petitioner was on her

way to her relatives house for vacation, the respondent

forcibly took her in a car stating that he will take her to

his parents house. However, the respondent did not take

the petitioner to his parents house, but kept her in a

secluded place. Whenever the respondent went out, he

used to lock the house in which the petitioner was kept.

The petitioner was not provided with food and water in

the said house. The petitioner suffered mental trauma in

the said house for almost ten days. Whenever the

petitioner asked the respondent to take her back to her

parents house, he was behaving very rudely with her and

used to abuse and assault her. On 19.01.2007, the

respondent abused the petitioner and her family

members. The petitioner having felt that the attitude

and behaviour of the respondent was changing, somehow

managed to escape from the house where she was kept

by the respondent and with the help of some passersby,

she came to her parents house.

5. After coming back to her parents house, she

informed about her marriage with the respondent to her

parents. Thereafterwards, the respondent used to come

near her house and he started threatening and

blackmailing her. He got issued a legal notice on

17.07.2007 to the mother of the petitioner alleging that

his wife Parijatha was forcibly detained by her parents.

Petitioner's mother had issued a reply to the said notice

on 03.08.2007 stating that her daughter was not

detained in the house and she was not aware of her

daughter's marriage with the respondent. The

respondent thereafterwards gave a Police complaint on

14.08.2007 stating that his wife was kidnapped. The

petitioner thereafterwards had appeared before the Police

on 19.08.2007 and she gave a statement to the effect

that she was willfully staying with her parents and she

was no more interested in staying with the respondent.

She had also stated that the respondent was

misbehaving with her and he also treated her with

cruelty. Subsequently, she had filed a petition under

Section 13(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the

Family Court, Bangalore with a prayer to dissolve her

marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce.

6. The respondent after service of notice in the said

proceedings had entered appearance and filed his

statement of objections contending that after the

marriage was performed on 18.10.2006, the same was

registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Peenya on

16.11.2006. He has stated that subsequently,

petitioner's aunt Jayalakshmi and her sister Preethi, who

is a practicing advocate, took the petitioner along with

them from his house, but did not send her back.

Therefore, he had issued a legal notice on 17.07.2007 to

the mother of the petitioner and also lodged a Police

complaint on 13.08.2007. He has further stated that

subsequently the petitioner was residing with him and

parents of the petitioner had lodged a missing complaint

in Crime No.101/2008 stating that their daughter was

missing and the petitioner had appeared before the

jurisdictional Police in the said case on 16.06.2008 and

stated that she was voluntarily living with the

respondent. He has stated that since the petitioner

wanted to study further, he had admitted her in a hostel

for the purpose of her Post-Graduation and at that time,

her sister Preethi and brother-in-law Ranganath met her

and brainwashed her and it is under their instance, she

has been fighting litigation against him. He had

accordingly prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Before the Family Court, the petitioner got

herself examined as PW-1 and 5 documents were marked

as Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of the respondent, he got

himself examined as RW-1 and got marked eight

documents as Exs.R1 to R8. The Family Court

thereafterwards heard the arguments of both sides and

vide the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the

petition field by the wife seeking dissolution of her

marriage with the respondent. Being aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner-wife has preferred this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the parties are residing separately for the last more than

12 years and they do not have trust, faith, love, respect

and belief on each other. In addition to the present

matrimonial proceedings, they are also fighting several

other litigations including two criminal cases filed by the

wife against her husband. She submits that the

respondent has completely failed to take care of his wife,

who had left the parental house with a hope that her

husband will take care of her and she would lead a happy

married life. She submits that the respondent did not

inform about the marriage to any of his relatives because

petitioner belonged to scheduled caste and kept the

petitioner in a secluded house. She submits that this

conduct of the respondent had caused serious mental

trauma to the petitioner and therefore, ultimately she

was driven to a situation wherein she had to join the

hostel and pursue her studies with a fond hope of finding

good future for her. She further submits that the

petitioner, who had left her parents house, was neither

there nor here and therefore, ultimately she had to join a

hostel for the purpose of prosecuting her Post-Graduation

and the material on record would go to show that the

respondent had gone to the hostel premises and created

a scene there and also had harassed and embarrassed

the petitioner. She submits that the respondent has not

performed his marital obligation at any point of time nor

has he bothered to take care of his wife, and on

the other hand, he had caused physical and mental

cruelty to her. She submits that the Family Court has

failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary

evidence available on record and has erred in dismissing

the petition filed by the wife for dissolution of marriage.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the petitioner has not made out a case for

dissolution of marriage. He submits that the petitioner is

ready and willing even on this day to join the respondent,

but it is her parents and sister, who have been coming in

her way. He submits that the petitioner had appeared

before the Police on 16.06.2008 and stated that she was

voluntarily residing with the respondent and she has

admitted that even during the pendency of the petition,

she has resided with her husband. He accordingly prays

to dismiss the appeal.

10. We have given our anxious consideration to the

arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the

material available on record.

11. In order to substantiate her case, the petitioner

has got examined herself as PW-1 before the Family

Court. Ex.P4 is the copy of her complaint lodged on

21.02.2009 before the Kolar Town Police Station. In the

said complaint she has stated in detail the various ill-

treatment meted out on her by her husband and she has

also stated that he was repeatedly abusing her stating

that because of the inter-caste marriage, he has no

respect in the society. She has further stated that the

respondent was also physically ill-treating her and

therefore, she also had attempted to commit suicide.

She has stated that since she got fed up with the attitude

and behaviour of the respondent and having felt that it

was not possible for her to live with him anymore and

since she had no support either from her family nor from

her husband, she was constrained to seek shelter in a

ladies' hostel where lodging and boarding was free. She

has stated that when she was in the hostel pursuing her

Post-Graduation studies, the respondent had come to the

hostel campus and misbehaved with her and had

threatened her with dire consequences, if she does not

come and join him. He also threatened her that he will

kill her relatives. This behaviour of the respondent had

created a fear in her and she was not able to concentrate

on her studies. It is under these circumstances, she had

appeared before the police and lodged a complaint

seeking their protection.

12. During the course of her evidence, petitioner

has stated that after marriage, she was not properly

taken care of by the respondent and she never lived a

happy married life at any point of time. She has stated

that she was kept in a secluded house, which was far

away from the village. Learned counsel for the petitioner

has contended that since the petitioner belonged to

Scheduled Caste, the respondent, did not want his

marriage to be known to any of his relatives and

therefore, he had kept the petitioner separately in a

secluded house.

13. From the entire appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence available on record, we find some

force in the argument addressed on behalf of the

petitioner. Ex.R6 produced by the respondent would go

to show that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste.

It has also come on record that the marriage between

the petitioner and respondent is a inter-caste marriage

and the petitioner has stated that because of the same,

respondent was ill-treating her on the ground that his

status in the society was damaged.

14. After marriage, the parties have stayed

together only for a short period and thereafterwards the

petitioner initially had gone back to her house and it

appears that she did not get her family support for the

reason that she had married without their consent and

against their wish and therefore, the petitioner was

constrained to take shelter in a ladies hostel. The

material on record would go to show that the respondent

went even to the said hostel and not only he abused and

harassed the petitioner, but also threatened her with dire

consequences on her life. He had created a fear in the

mind of the petitioner which had constrained the

petitioner to approach the Police and lodge a complaint

seeking their protection. The petitioner having found

that it was not possible to live with the respondent and

since there was no compatibility between the couple, had

filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage.

15. The respondent has been contesting the

proceedings but he has not made any efforts to bring

back the petitioner home. It is not his case that after the

petitioner went back to her house, he and his family

members had made efforts to bring her back or there

was any panchayat held in this regard. It is also not his

case that his parents had made any attempt to bring the

petitioner back home. Therefore, it is very clear that

since the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste,

relatives of the respondent had not got themselves

involved in the dispute between the couple. The

respondent does not want the marital tie to be separated

but at the same time, the material on record would go to

show that there are no genuine efforts made by the

respondent to bring back the petitioner and live with her.

The petitioner, who had married the respondent in a very

young age, was not received well thereafterwards either

in her husband's house nor in her parents house. The

conduct of the respondent in ill-treating the petitioner on

the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and

persistently stating that because of the marriage, his

status was reduced in the society, etc., definitely would

have caused serious mental trauma on the petitioner.

16. For the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, "cruelty" would be either physical cruelty or

mental cruelty. In the case of hand, in addition to the

allegation that the respondent was in the habit of

assaulting the petitioner, petitioner has clearly stated

that because of her caste, she was not received well by

the husband and his relatives. This is very clear from the

fact that the petitioner was subsequently constrained to

take shelter in a ladies hostel. The material on record

would go to show that the respondent had not stopped

there but he continued to harass and pester the

petitioner even after she took shelter in the ladies hostel.

The Police complaint lodged by her at Ex.P4 would clearly

go to show that the respondent had gone to the campus

of the hostel and had ill-treated and threatened her.

17. For the purpose of establishing mental cruelty,

it is not necessary that physical violence should be used.

There can never be any straightjacket formula for

determining the mental cruelty, but the same is required

to be assessed on the basis of the material available on

record depending upon the facts and circumstances of

the case. In the present case, it appears that the

respondent was constantly ill-treating the petitioner and

she was also admonished on the ground that she belongs

to Scheduled Caste.

18. The comprehensive appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence available on record would clearly

go to show that the respondent had treated the petitioner

with cruelty after the marriage. In our considered view,

the Family Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of

the matter and has erred in dismissing the petition filed

by the wife seeking dissolution of marriage under Section

13(1)(ia) of the Act.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi

Kumar -vs- Julmidevi reported in (2010) 4 SCC 476

has held that cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of

infinite variety, it may be subtle or even brutal and may

be by gestures and words.

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Mayadevi -vs- Jagdish Prasad reported in AIR 2007

SC 1426 has held that the question of mental cruelty has

to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties

of the particular society to which the parties belong, their

social values, status, environment in which they live.

Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which

falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty

need not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse

same is established and/or an inference can be

legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is

such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the

other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this

conduct amounts to cruelty.

21. The parties to this appeal have been fighting

this litigation for the last more than 12 years. During the

pendency of this proceedings, they have instituted

several other proceedings against each other. The

parties have lost confidence on each other and they have

no love, respect, faith or belief on each other. The

marriage between the parties is dead. Several efforts

made before the Family Court as well as before this court

for conciliation and mediation has failed. The parties

have no issues born from the marriage. The ill-conduct

of respondent has been persistent for a fairly lengthy

period and therefore, the relationship between the

parties has deteriorated to an extent that the wife finds it

extremely difficult to live with him and under such

circumstances, the wronged party cannot be asked to put

up and continue the marital tie.

22. Under the circumstances, we are of the

considered view that there is no purpose in continuing

the marriage by asking the petitioner and the respondent

to live together. Accordingly, the following order:

The judgment and decree dated 21st June 2012

passed by the court of Additional Principal Judge, Family

Court-IV, Bangalore, in M.C.No.456/2008 is set aside and

the petition of appellant-wife is allowed under Section

13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage

of the appellant with the respondent solemnized on

18.10.2006 is dissolved by a decree of divorce.

In the result, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is

allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-