Sri Kumaraswamy K G vs Smt T Bhagya
2023 Latest Caselaw 1833 Kant

                           -1-
                                          MFA No.75 of 2016




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2023
                       PRESENT
       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                          AND
  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.75 OF 2016 (FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI KUMARASWAMY K.G.
S/O SRI GANGA HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT D NO.84, "LAKSHMI NIVASA",
2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
JAYANAGARA, MYSURU-570023.
PRESENT ADDRESS:
R/AT D.NO.26, AMMA NILAYA,
3RD MAIN, JAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570023.
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADV.)

AND:

SMT. T. BHAGYA
D/O SRI MAHIMANNA,
W/O SRI KUMARASWAMY K.G.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
NO.2149, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, K BLOCK,
KUVEMPU NAGARA, MYSURU-570023.
CORRECT ADDRESS:
SMT. BHAGYA
D/O SRI MAHIMANNA,
RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD,
SHETTIHALLI GATE, TUMKUR-585202.
                                     ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.)
                                 -2-
                                                MFA No.75 of 2016




     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
16.10.2015, PASSED IN MC NO.474/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF JUDGE, ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, MYSURU,
REJECTING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13(1) (ia) OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
10.03.2023,  COMING    ON  FOR  PRONOUNCEMENT      OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of the Family

Courts Act, 1984, against the judgment and decree dated

16.10.2015 passed in M.C.No.474/2011 by the Additional

Judge, Family Court, Mysore, by which the petition filed by

the appellant/husband seeking dissolution of marriage,

was rejected.

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

the appellant and respondent got married on 16.02.2009

and out of the wedlock a male child was born. It is

averred that the appellant is working as a School Teacher

and from the initial stage of marriage the respondent had

of quarrelsome attitude. It was further averred that she

used to leave the matrimonial home without informing the

appellant. It is pleaded that when the appellant

MFA No.75 of 2016

questioned the action of the respondent, she used to

threaten the appellant that she would file criminal cases

against him for demand of dowry. It is further pleaded

that on 01.10.2011 the respondent deliberately prevented

the appellant from entering the house and also attempted

to commit suicide. The appellant, therefore lodged the

complaint with the police. It is also pleaded that

respondent has lodged a complaint to the superiors at the

workplace of the appellant, complaints to police and to the

State Woman Commission making reckless allegations

against the appellant. It is averred that despite taking

care of the respondent with love and affection, she was in

the habit of consistently threatening the appellant. It is

further averred that respondent used to suspect the

character of the appellant without any basis. Such acts of

the respondent was unbearable, hence the appellant filed

petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of

cruelty.

3. The respondent did not dispute the relationship

between the parties and the birth of the child, however,

MFA No.75 of 2016

she denied the pleadings with regard to cruelty. It is

averred that respondent insisted, the appellant to arrange

for a house near to his place of work, however, he has

arranged the residence at Mysore. It is further averred

that during her pregnancy, the residence was vacated and

after delivery, she has expressed desire to join the

appellant. However, the appellant made the respondent to

stay in his native place at Kembalalu, Tumkur District. It

is pleaded that appellant used to come home very late in

the night and he was having an affair with one

Smt.Jayalakshmi, who was working as an High School

Teacher. It is further pleaded that, whenever, respondent

questioned the appellant about the illicit relation, he used

to quarrel with the respondent, hence she lodged

complaint before Police, Woman Commission and also

before the employer of the appellant. It was also pleaded

that it is the appellant, who has treated the respondent

with cruelty and hence sought for dismissal of the petition.

4. The Family Court recorded the evidence. The

appellant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked

MFA No.75 of 2016

Exs.P1 to P6. The respondent examined herself as RW.1

and got marked Exs.R1 to R14. The Family Court on the

basis of evidence adduced by the parties vide judgment

dated 16.10.2015 dismissed the petition. In the aforesaid

factual matrix the present appeal has been filed.

5. 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

appellant has filed petition before the Family Court seeking

dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

However, the Family Court without appreciating the

evidence on record has erroneously rejected the petition.

It is submitted that the Family Court has failed to

appreciate that the respondent/wife has made reckless

allegations against the appellant without substantiating

the same. It is submitted that the respondent has lodged

complaint with the police, Woman Commission and also

with the appellant's employer, which has damaged his

reputation in the work place, family and the society at

large. It is further submitted that respondent was in the

MFA No.75 of 2016

habit of black mailing the appellant by making attempts to

commit suicide and these aspects have not been properly

appreciated by the Family Court. It is contended that such

act of the respondent amounts to mental cruelty and

therefore, sought to allow the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the

following decisions :-

a. V. BHAGAT Vs. D BHAGAT - (1994)1 SCC 337;

b. VIJAYKUMAR RAMACHANDRA BHATE Vs. NEELA

VIJAYKUMAR BHATE - (2003)6 SCC 334;

c. NARENDRA Vs. K MEENA - (2016)9 SCC 455 and

d. A.JAYACHANDRA Vs. ANEEL KAUR - (2005) 2 SCC 22

There is no dispute with regard to the preposition of law

canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent

supports the judgment of the Family Court and contends

that it is the appellant, who has caused cruelty on the

respondent. It is submitted that appellant had an affair

with one Smt. Jayalakshmi, who was working as High

School Teacher. It is submitted that appellant used to

MFA No.75 of 2016

quarrel with the respondent and he has made a house at

Kuvempunagar, Mysore, to facilitate Smt.Jayalakshmi. It

is submitted that the Family Court has rightly appreciated

the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion

that the appellant has failed to prove the ground of cruelty

and rejected the petition.

8. We have considered submissions made on both sides

and perused the material on record. It will be useful to

refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

VISHWANATH AGRAWAL Vs. SARLA VISHWANATH

AGRAWAL (2012) 7 SCC 288 and V. BHAGAT Vs. MRS D.

BHAGAT (1994)1 SCC 337. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held that if the party makes incorrect, imaginary and

irresponsible allegations it amounts to mental cruelty.

Keeping in mind the well settled law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, we advert to the pleading and

evidence on record.

9. On considering the rival submissions and meticulous

scrutiny of the evidence on record, the relationship

MFA No.75 of 2016

between the parties and birth of the child is not disputed.

The appellant has contended that he is working as a

School Teacher in Government Higher Primary School and

he has made all arrangements to take care of the

respondent and the child. On meticulous examination of

pleading and evidence, it is evident that various

complaints have been lodged by the respondent against

the appellant alleging illicit relation of the appellant with

Smt.Jayalakshmi have been closed and no action has been

taken on such complaints. On careful consideration of

evidence of PW.1, RW.1 and exhibits P3, R4, R8 and R10,

what emerges is that there were several instances of

quarrel between the appellant and the respondent.

10. On close reading of the complaints lodged by the

respondent/wife referred supra it is evident that she has

attempted to commit suicide and has made serious and

defamatory allegations against the appellant about the

illicit relationship of the appellant with Smt.Jayalakshmi.

PW.1 in his evidence has deposed that respondent has

cultivated the habit of threatening the appellant by saying

MFA No.75 of 2016

that she would send the appellant to jail and make him

jobless by filing a complaint against him making allegation

of dowry harassment. He further deposed that his life has

become miserable and was always in fearful state of mind

and has spent sleepless nights after marrying the

respondent. He has further deposed that respondent has

made attempts to commit suicide which resulted in filing

of the police complaint by him. The respondent has

denied the allegation referred supra, however, she herself

has produced the complaints filed by her as exhibits R4,

R8 and R10. The said document viz. Ex.R-10

unequivocably establish the fact that respondent has made

an attempt to commit suicide and made reckless

allegations against the appellant without substantiating

the same.

11. The respondent has averred in the statement of

objections filed before the Family Court that appellant had

illicit relation with one Smt.Jayalakshmi and the appellant

used harass the respondent. However, she failed to

establish the said contention by adducing proper evidence.

- 10 -

MFA No.75 of 2016

The allegations made in the pleading, filing of three

complaints by the respondent before the various

authorities has adversely affected the reputation and

status of the appellant, hence such act of the respondent

amounts to mental cruelty. The Family Court has not

appreciated the pleading, evidence on record and has

erroneously come to the conclusion that the appellant has

failed to prove the ground of cruelty. The Family Court

ought to have appreciated the fact that the

respondent/wife has made reckless allegations against the

appellant about his character and filed various complaints.

Such act of the respondent has damaged his reputation in

the work place and in the family. These instances have

not been appreciated by the Family Court in its proper

perspective which has resulted in perverse findings and

consequential rejection of the petition filed by the

appellant.

12. For the aforementioned reasons the impugned

judgment and decree dated 16.10.2015 passed in

M.C.No.474/2011 is hereby set aside and the marriage

- 11 -

MFA No.75 of 2016

between the appellant and the respondent is hereby

dissolved by granting decree of divorce on the ground of

cruelty.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

NG CT: DMN