M V Srinivas vs Smt S G Latha
2023 Latest Caselaw 2333 Kant

                           -1-
                                     M.F.A.No.2905 of 2016




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
      DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2023
                       PRESENT
      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                           AND
  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
            M.F.A. NO.2905 OF 2016 (FC)
BETWEEN

M.V.SRINIVAS
S/O M.P.VENKATARAMANA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.18,
TEMPLE ROAD,
MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560003.
                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KUSHAL KUMAR V.S. A/W
    SMT.RAKSHA KEERTHANA K., ADV. FOR
    SRI KEMPARAJU, ADV.)

AND

SMT. S.G.LATHA
W/O M.V.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO.313/9, 4TH MAIN,
7TH CROSS, P.G.HALLI,
BANGALORE-560003.
                                           ...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT HELD SUFFICIENT)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
05.12.2015 PASSED IN M.C.NO.40/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE
II   ADDITIONAL    PRINCIPAL   JUDGE,   FAMILY  COURT,
BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S. 13(1) (ia)
& (ib) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT FOR DECREE OF DIVORCE.
                                    -2-
                                                 M.F.A.No.2905 of 2016




     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
19.04.2023,  COMING   ON   FOR  PRONOUNCEMENT   OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts

Act, 1984, has been filed against the judgment and decree

dated 05.12.2015 passed in M.C.No.40/2003 by the II

Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, by

which the petition filed by the appellant seeking

dissolution of marriage, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are

that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was

solemnized on 05.11.2000 at Sakaleshpura, Hassan. It is

averred that the appellant tried his best to keep the

respondent happy, but the respondent did not understand

the goodness of the appellant. She is short tempered,

non-cooperative, inspite of the same, the appellant

managed the company of the respondent. Out of the

wedlock a female child viz., Dhruthi, was born on

15.06.2001. After the respondent returned from the

confinement period, she developed non-cooperative

M.F.A.No.2905 of 2016

attitude and she was rude, arrogant and quarreling with

everybody at home. On many occasions, the respondent

used to assault and slap the appellant.

3. It is further averred that when the appellant's

mother wanted to wear the gold chain to attend the

function, the respondent refused to give the same and

abused the mother of the appellant and insulted her. The

respondent was in the habit of quarreling with the

appellant and his family members for silly reasons. She

used to throw vessels and household articles on the

appellant and she has also not taken care of the child. It is

also averred that the brother of the respondent is a

Politician and he has threatened the appellant and his

family members. The respondent used to threaten the

appellant of filing false complaint with the police against

him and his family members was also practicing black

magic.

4. She has picked up quarrel when they wished to

visit Tirupathi and abruptly left the matrimonial home and

started living in her elder brother's house and on pacifying

M.F.A.No.2905 of 2016

her, she came back to matrimonial home, even then she

has not improved her conduct. On 15.12.2002, the

respondent left the matrimonial home and started residing

with her parents and despite best efforts made by the

appellant, she has refused to rejoin.

5. The respondent has entered appearance before

the Family Court and filed the statement of objections.

The respondent has admitted the relationship and birth of

the child. It is averred that the appellant was in the habit

of demanding dowry and he has made extra demand of

dowry for purchase of property at Margosa road,

Bengaluru. It is further averred that the respondent has

been brought up in an Orthodox family and has performed

the duties of a dutiful wife, but it is the appellant who used

to threaten the respondent and assaulted her on many

occasions. Without any provocation, the appellant used to

assault the respondent under the influence of alcohol. It is

also averred that the appellant, his parents, brother and

sister-in-law have physically assaulted the respondent and

sent her out of the house, hence, she took shelter in the

M.F.A.No.2905 of 2016

house of Sri.Nagaraj. Thereafter, negotiations were held,

the respondent joined the matrimonial home, and

immediately, after one week, she was again sent out of

the house on the ground that the respondent's parents

have not met the demand for dowry.

6. It is further averred that in the second week of

December 2002, the appellant stayed away from the

house and started living separately without informing the

respondent and she has filed a complaint before the police

in C.Misc.6/2003 to ascertain the whereabouts of the

appellant. Thereafter, the appellant and his parents have

appeared before the police and informed that they have

filed the petition in M.C.No.40/2003 for dissolution of

marriage. It is pleaded that after the filing of the petition,

the appellant invited the respondent to come near his shop

viz., Your's Shoppee at 17th Cross Sadashivanagar; and

again she was called on 12.04.2003, on that day, the

appellant has assaulted the respondent and caused injury

and she has filed police complaint before the

Sadashivanagar Police, which was registered in

M.F.A.No.2905 of 2016

Cr.No.75/2003. Inspite of all these acts, she has

maintained good relation with the appellant. She has

denied the allegations of cruelty and practice of black

magic. It is further pleaded that in order to continue her

marital relationship, she has filed a petition for restitution

of conjugal rights in M.C.1/2007 which was allowed on

20.10.2008. However, she could not execute the same on

the hope that the appellant will take her back to home. It

is also pleaded that on 04.03.2010 the appellant came

near the house of the respondent under the influence of

alcohol demanded to return the cheques issued by him.

On 07.03.2010, he came and assaulted the respondent,

hence she has filed police complaint in Crl.Mis.122/2010,

the police have summoned the appellant, he undertook

that he will not create any problem to the respondent and

maintain cordial relation with her. The respondent has

denied the allegations of cruelty and sought for dismissal

of the petition.

7. The Family Court, on the basis of pleading and

evidence, recorded the evidence. The appellant examined

M.F.A.No.2905 of 2016

himself as PW.1 and produced Exs.P1 to P10. The

respondent examined herself as RW.1 and another witness

as RW.2 and produced Ex.D1 to D12. The Family Court

based on the evidence adduced by the parties vide

judgment dated 05.12.2015 dismissed the petition. In the

aforesaid factual matrix, the present appeal has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between

the parties and the birth of the child. It is submitted that

the respondent was a quarrelsome lady, she used to pick

up quarrel on silly reasons with the appellant and his

family members. She has threatened the appellant of filing

false criminal case against them and she has assaulted the

appellant and his family members by throwing vessels and

household articles. It is further submitted that the brother

of the appellant is the politician and he has instigated the

respondent to cause cruelty to the appellant. It is also

submitted that the respondent was practicing black magic

and she had picked up quarrel when they wished to visit

Tirupati temple. She attempted to stab the appellant with

M.F.A.No.2905 of 2016

household article and she left the matrimonial home on

15.10.2002. It is submitted that Family Court has not

appreciated the evidence on record. The appellant has

proved the ground of cruelty by adducing the evidence

placing on record the documents. However, the Family

Court has not considered the same. It is submitted that

from last 20 years the couple are living separately and

there is no chance of reunion hence, sought to set aside

the impugned judgment by dissolving the marriage.

Though the notice is served on the respondent, she

remained absent. Hence, placed exparte.

     9.   We    have   heard      learned    counsel    for   the

appellant and perused the material on record.                 The

relationship between the parties and birth of the child is

not disputed. On careful consideration of the pleading and

evidence on record, the allegations of cruelty are that the

respondent used to quarrel with the appellant, assault and

abuse him and that she had refused to hand over the gold

chain to appellant's mother. She was a quarrelsome lady

and that her brother instigated her to cause cruelty on the

M.F.A.No.2905 of 2016

appellant. She has threatened to lodge false case against

the appellant, she used to practice black magic, she has

left the matrimonial home on 15.12.2002 and started

residing with the parents.

10. The aforesaid allegations of cruelty are

reiterated in the evidence of PW1. The allegations of

cruelty are very vague and they are not substantiated with

cogent evidence to come to conclusion that the respondent

has caused mental cruelty to the appellant and he is

unable to lead marital life with the respondent. The

allegations are usual wear and tear in the marital life. The

respondent-wife has specifically pleaded and reiterated the

same in her evidence that the appellant had called the

respondent to his shop and met her on two occasions, the

appellant has also visited the residence of respondent in

R.T.Nagar. The appellant in his cross-examination has

clearly admitted the said fact and deposed that he has

good relationship with the respondent.

11. The subsequent act of the appellant requesting

the respondent to come to his shop, also visiting the

- 10 -

M.F.A.No.2905 of 2016

respondent's house after the alleged desertion and the

admission in the cross-examination of P.W.1 it is evident

that the appellant has condoned the alleged act of cruelty

of the respondent. The allegations of cruelty pleaded, the

same is reiterated in the evidence of PW.1 are nothing but

self serving statements of appellant without substantiating

the same by way of cogent and corroborative evidence.

The allegations of cruelty are not so weighty and grave to

come to the conclusion that the respondent has caused

mental cruelty on the appellant and the appellant is unable

to lead marital life with the respondent.

12. The appellant has failed to discharge the

burden of proving the ground of cruelty and desertion

before the Family Court. The appellant has not specifically

pleaded nor adduced any evidence to establish the fact

that the respondent has left the matrimonial home of the

appellant two year preceding the presentation of petition

with an intention to end the cohabitation permanently. In

the absence of any pleading and evidence, the Family

Court has rightly given the finding that the appellant has

- 11 -

M.F.A.No.2905 of 2016

failed to prove the grounds of desertion and cruelty and

dismissed the petition.

13. The Family Court, on meticulous appreciation of

evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the

appellant has failed to prove the grounds for dissolution of

marriage i.e., cruelty and desertion. The aforesaid finding

does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference

by this Court in the present appeal.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit

in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR CT:DMN