Sri H S Prasanna vs Smt Rithu @ Mehamooda
2023 Latest Caselaw 4593 Kant

                                             -1-
                                                    NC: 2023:KHC:24906-DB
                                                       MFA No.9821 of 2017




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                           DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
                                          PRESENT
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                             AND
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9821 OF 2017 (FC)
                 BETWEEN:

                 1.    SRI. H.S. PRASANNA
                       S/O LATE SRI. SHIVANNA GOWDA
                       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
                       R/AT. BANAKAL VILLAGE
Digitally              MUDIGERE TALUK
signed by              CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577113.
RUPA V
                                                              ...APPELLANT
Location: High
Court of         (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HEGDE, ADV.,)
Karnataka
                 AND:

                 1.    SMT. RITHU @ MEHAMOODA
                       W/O H.S. PRASANNA
                       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
                       R/AT. BANAKAL VILLAGE
                       MUDIGER TALUK
                       CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577113.
                                                            ...RESPONDENT

                 (BY SMT. SHAKUNTALA V. RACHOTIMATH, ADV., (ABSENT))

                      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT,
                 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
                 30.10.2017 PASSED IN MC.NO.86/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE
                 PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU,
                 DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC. 13(1)(ia) OF THE
                 HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

                     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
                 ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                        -2-
                              NC: 2023:KHC:24906-DB
                                 MFA No.9821 of 2017




                   JUDGMENT

This is husband's appeal under Section

19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging

the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2017

passed in M.C.No.86/2014 on the file of Family

Court, Chikkamagalur, wherein the Family court

has dismissed the petition for dissolution of

marriage filed by husband on the ground of

cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act' for short).

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication

of the case can be summarized as under:

3. The marriage between the parties was

solemnized on 06.06.2009. From the wedlock,

the couple have a daughter, who was born on

NC: 2023:KHC:24906-DB MFA No.9821 of 2017

12.03.2010. It is stated in the petition that the

petitioner and the respondent knew each other

since, 2003 when the petitioner met the

respondent in Mumbai. It is further stated that

on 03.06.2014 there was a quarrel between the

couple and wife stated that prior to the marriage

she was a sex worker in Mumbai. According to

the petitioner, this fact is suppressed by the wife

before the marriage and he was shocked to hear

the past history of the wife. It is further stated

that the wife is from Bangladesh and this fact

was also suppressed by the wife and the

suppression of the aforesaid facts resulted to

mental cruelty and he is seeking dissolution of

marriage on the ground that the wife has

suppressed the material fact before the marriage.

NC: 2023:KHC:24906-DB MFA No.9821 of 2017

4. The husband has contended that the

suppression of the material fact made him to

marry the respondent. The husband would not

have married if she had disclosed these facts

before the marriage.

5. The wife filed written statement and

denied the allegations levelled against her . It is

her contention that the husband is not taking

proper care and left the company of the wife and

his daughter and is not providing any

maintenance to her and for this reason, she has

filed a petition viz., Crl.Mis.No. 211/2014 on the

file of JMFC, Mudigere. The wife has contended

that the petition is filed only with an intention to

harass her and sought for dismissal of the

petition of the husband.

NC: 2023:KHC:24906-DB MFA No.9821 of 2017

6. The husband to substantiate his

contention has examined himself as PW1 and

has not produced any documents. The wife has

examined herself as RW1 and has produced 14

documents viz., Ex.R1 to Ex.R14. After hearing

both the Learned counsel, the family court has

dismissed the petition on the ground that the

allegations levelled against the wife are not

established. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid

judgment and decree, the husband is in appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant

reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memo

and would submit that the family court has not

properly appreciated the oral and documentary

evidence led before the family court. It is also his

contention that the wife on 03.06.2014 on her

NC: 2023:KHC:24906-DB MFA No.9821 of 2017

own has disclosed the fact that she was working

as sex worker in Mumbai before the marriage

and originally hailed from Bangladesh. Learned

counsel for the appellant would contend that had

this fact been disclosed prior to marriage, the

husband would not have contracted marriage

with the respondent. She married the appellant

by practicing fraud and this fact would amount

to cruelty and the husband is entitled to

dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

It is further contended that merely because the

wife is staying with her mother, the family court

has come to the conclusion that the past history

disclosed by the wife as urged by the husband is

not established. It is further urged that the wife

used to threaten the husband saying she would

NC: 2023:KHC:24906-DB MFA No.9821 of 2017

commit suicide by hanging herself and jumping

in the open well or by consuming poison. This

threat given by the wife amounts to mental

cruelty and this fact has not been properly

appreciated by the family court.

Though the wife is served, there is no

representation.

8. This court has considered the

contention raised at the bar and perused the

impugned judgment and decree and also the

material placed on record. The petition averment

would clearly disclose the fact that there was no

drift between the husband and wife till 2014. As

per the averment made in the petition, the

husband alleged that the wife disclosed for the

first time in 2014, that she was working as a sex

NC: 2023:KHC:24906-DB MFA No.9821 of 2017

worker in Mumbai prior to the marriage. The

family court has considered the evidence on

record. On appreciation of the facts, the family

court has concluded that the allegation against

the wife is not established. Except oral testimony

of the husband, there is nothing on record to

show that the wife was working as sex worker

prior to the marriage. It is also to be noticed that

it is the contention of the husband that he got

the confirmation through the alleged past history

of the wife from his friends. None of his friends

from Mumbai is examined. The contention that

the wife has suppressed her past life is not

established by leading any acceptable evidence.

On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, this

court is of the view that the finding of the family

NC: 2023:KHC:24906-DB MFA No.9821 of 2017

court that the allegations against the wife are not

established is just and proper and does not call

for any interference under Section 19 of the

Family Courts Act, 1984.

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the

judgment and decree dated 30.10.2017 passed in

M.C.No.86/2014 on the file of Family Court,

Chikkamagalur has to be confirmed and

accordingly, it is confirmed.

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS