Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sundari D @ Soujanya vs Prashanth Kumar K C
2023 Latest Caselaw 755 Kant

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 755 Kant
Judgement Date : 11 January, 2023

Karnataka High Court
Sundari D @ Soujanya vs Prashanth Kumar K C on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

                       PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                         AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              M.F.A. No.2282 OF 2020 (FC)
BETWEEN:

SUNDARI D. @ SOUJANYA
W/O PRASHANTH KUMAR K C
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO. 8686, 4TH STAGE
2ND PHASE, VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION
DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU 56001.
                                    ... APPELLANT
(BY MRS. BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADV.,)

AND:

PRASHANTH KUMAR K C
S/O LATE CHIKKARAMU K.S.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT ANUGRAHA
KUDARAGUNDI, GEJJALAGERE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571428.
                                      ... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADV.,)
                         ---
     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.01.2020
PASSED IN MC NO.825/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU,
                              2



DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
13(1)(ia) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

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

                       JUDGMENT

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

Act, 1984 has been filed against judgment and decree

dated 18.01.2020 by which petition filed by the appellant

seeking dissolution of marriage has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the marriage between the parties was

solemnized on 17.02.2008 in Pandavapura Village, District

Mandya. The appellant is employed as Assistant Professor

in Government Women's College, Mandya, whereas, the

respondent is an agriculturist. Out of the wedlock, a

daughter viz., Aishwarya K.P. is born.

3. The appellant filed a petition on about

06.12.2018 seeking dissolution of the marriage on the

ground of cruelty. It is pleaded in the petition that after

the marriage, the appellant got appointment as a lecturer

in Government Degree College in the year 2009. It was

further pleaded that respondent used to abuse and

assault the appellant near the work place of the appellant

and in public places. It was also pleaded that respondent

used to take away the entire salary of the appellant and

used to harass the appellant physically and mentally. The

appellant had given birth to a daughter. The respondent

after the birth of the daughter stated before the

colleagues, students and relatives that Principal of the

College is the father of the child. The respondent used to

take financial assistance from the students and colleagues

of the appellant. It was therefore averred that the

respondent has subjected the appellant to mental cruelty.

Accordingly, the dissolution of marriage was sought on the

ground of cruelty.

4. The respondent filed statement of objection in

which the factum of marriage was admitted. However, the

averments made in the petition were denied. It was also

pleaded that the respondent was not permitted to interact

with the daughter till almost for a period of one year. In

para 20 of the statement of objection it was pleaded that

appellant was having illicit relationship with one

Mallikarjun and was visiting him in the absence of his

wife.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

family court framed the issues. The appellant examined

herself as PW1 and two witnesses viz., Shivlingegowda and

Manjunatha M as PW2 and PW3 and exhibited 5

documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The respondent examined

himself and did not produce any documents. The family

court vide impugned judgment inter alia held that the

appellant herself withdrew from the company of

respondent without any reasonable cause and therefore,

the parties must find out a workable solution. Accordingly,

the petition was dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that baseless allegations have been made by the

respondent that appellant is having an illicit relationship

with one Mallikarjun. It is further submitted that even in

his examination-in-chief, the respondent has reiterated

the same allegations. It is also submitted that in the facts

and circumstances of the case, the appellant had made

out a case for dissolution of marriage on the ground of

mental cruelty. On the other hand, learned counsel for

the respondent has supported the judgment and decree

passed by the family court.

7. We have considered the rival submissions

made on both sides and have perused the record. It is trite

law that unsubstantiated allegations with regard to extra

marital affair made by a party to a proceeding amounts to

mental cruelty justifying the ground of decree of divorce.

The Hon'be Supreme Court in 'VIJAY KUMAR

RAMCHANDRA BHATE VS. NEELA VIJAYAKUMAR

BHATE', (2003) 6 SCC 334 while dealing with mental

cruelty in para 7 has held that leveling accusations of

unchastity and extra marital relationship constitute grave

assault on the character, honor, reputation, status as well

as health of the wife. Similarly, in NARENDRA VS.

K.MEENA (2016) 9 SCC 455, it has been held that

unsubstantiated extra marital affair allegations leveled by

one spouse against another constitutes mental cruelty and

justifies the grant of decree of divorce.

8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal

position, we may advert to the evidence on record. In para

20 of the statement of objections, the respondent has

stated that the appellant had an illicit relationship with

one Mallikarjun and used to visit the house of Mallikarjun

in the absence of his wife. Similarly, in para 20 of the

examination-in-chief of the respondent, he has reiterated

that the appellant has an illicit relationship with

Mallikarjun. However, no evidence has been adduced to

prove the aforesaid allegation. The averments made are of

such magnitude and consequence which cause mental

agony to wife and constitutes mental cruelty.

9. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter

has not been appreciated by the family court. The

impugned judgment and decree passed by the family court

is therefore, set aside. The marriage performed between

the parties on 17.02.2008 is dissolved by a decree of

divorce.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter