Karnataka High Court
Arunjyothi W/O Siddayya (D/O ... vs K.Siddayya S/O K. Anjaneyya on 28 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3334-DB
MFA No. 202035 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202035 OF 2015 (FC)
BETWEEN:
ARUNJYOTHI W/O SIDDAYYA,
(D/O MEKKANARAYANA),
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O H.NO.8-1029, NEAR STATE BANK OF INDIA,
GUTTI (A.P)-515001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. CHANDRAKALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
K.SIDDAYYA S/O K. ANJANEYYA,
Digitally signed by AGE: 45 YEARS,
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ OCC: AGRI. & PVT. WORK,
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH COURT
R/O H.NO.10-4-45,
OF KARNATAKA MAKTHALPET, RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING
ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.10.2014 IN M.C.
No.47/2013 BY THE LEARNED PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
RAICHUR AND CONSEQUENTLY REMAND THE MATTER TO THE
FAMILY COURT, RAICHUR TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE
APPELLANT FOR LEADING EVIDENCE, ETC., IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3334-DB
MFA No. 202035 of 2015
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984, challenging the judgment dated
14.10.2014 passed in MC No.47/2013 by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Raichur.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.
The appellant is the respondent and respondent is the
petitioner before the Family Court.
3. The brief facts for filing of this appeal are that,
the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner
and their marriage was solemnized on 05.11.2009 as per
the customs prevailing in their community. The petitioner
stated in the petition that petitioner lived with the
respondent only for 15 days, thereafter, she left the house
of the petitioner, as such, respondent failed to discharge
her matrimonial obligation. It is contended that the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3334-DB
respondent married with the petitioner on the force of her
parents, and she was harassing the petitioner by lodging a
false complaint against him and his family members. It is
contended that, since the marriage was not consummated,
the respondent and the petitioner are residing separately
for more than three years and the same is causing mental
cruelty to the family members of the petitioner. The
petitioner requested the respondent to come and join the
company of the petitioner, but the respondent refused to
join the company of the petitioner. Hence, cause of action
arose for the petitioner to file petition for dissolution of
marriage.
4. The respondent filed the statement of
objections admitting her marriage with the petitioner and
denied the allegations made in the petition. It is contended
that after the marriage, the respondent joined the
company of the petitioner and led happy married life and
marriage was consummated. It is contended that the
respondent is ever ready and willing to join the company
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3334-DB
of the petitioner to lead happy married life. It is contended
that the respondent has never deserted the petitioner. On
the contrary, the petitioner has deserted the company of
the respondent without any sufficient cause. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. The Family Court on the basis of the pleadings
of the parties framed the points for determination.
i. "Whether the petitioner has proved
that respondent being his legally
wedded wife, caused ill-treatment and
deserted his company soon after their
marriage, thereby the marriage
between them is liable to be
dissolved?
ii. Whether the petitioner-husband is
entitled for decree of divorce?
iii. What order?"
6. The petitioner got himself examined as PW.1
and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P4. Respondent got
examined herself as RW.1 and no documents were
exhibited. The Family Court after recording the evidence,
hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3334-DB
assessment of oral and documentary evidence, answered
point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and point No.3 as per
the final order and consequently, allowed the petition filed
by the petitioner and marriage solemnized between the
petitioner and the respondent on 05.11.2009 at Gutti was
dissolved by a decree of divorce and ordered the petitioner
to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent as
permanent alimony within six months from the date of the
order. The respondent aggrieved by the judgment and
decree dated 14.10.2014 passed in MC No.47/2013 filed
this Miscellaneous First Appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
respondent and the learned counsel for the respondent-
petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant - respondent
submits that the Family Court merely on the basis of
complaint filed by the appellant-respondent against the
respondent - petitioner has passed the decree of divorce.
The said decree passed by the Family Court is contrary to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3334-DB
the law laid down by the Division Bench of High Court of
Karnataka in the case of S. Shyamala vs. B.N.
Mallikarjunaiah in MFA No.3352/2016 dated 14.03.2012
and High Court of Delhi in the case of Anshul Jain vs.
Nitin Jain in MAT.APP.(F.C.)149/2023 & CM
APPL.27557/2023 dated 03.10.2023. Hence, she submits
that the Family Court has committed an error in awarding
decree only on these grounds of cruelty and desertion.
She submits that the petitioner himself deserted the
respondent and further the petitioner used to demand the
dowry. When the respondent failed to fulfill his
requirement, he has filed a petition. Hence, she submits
that the Family Court has granted Rs.4,00,000/- as
permanent alimony which is meager. Hence, on this
ground, she prays to allow the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
submits that though the marriage was solemnized
between the petitioner and the respondent, the
respondent stayed with the petitioner only for a period of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3334-DB
15 days and the respondent has failed to fulfill the marital
obligations. He also submits that the respondent has
lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. Thus, it
amounts to cruelty, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangayakarasi vs.
M.Yuvaraj reported in (2020) 3 SCC 786. Hence, on this
ground, the Family Court was justified in passing the
impugned judgment. Hence, he also submits that the
permanent alimony awarded by the Family Court is just
and proper. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss
the appeal.
10. The points that would arise for consideration in
this appeal are:
i. Whether the appellant proves that the
judgment passed by the Family Court in
awarding permanent alimony of
Rs.4,00,000/- is meager?
ii. What order or award?
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3334-DB
11. Perused and considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties.
POINT NO.1:
12. There is no dispute in regard to the marriage of
the petitioner with the respondent. Though respondent is
the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, their marriage
was solemnized on 05.11.2009 as per the customs
prevailing in their community, it is the case of the
petitioner that the respondent lived with the petitioner
only for a period of 15 days and the respondent has failed
to fulfill the marital obligations and their marriage was not
consummated. Hence, he submits that the respondent left
the company of the petitioner. Though the petitioner
requested the respondent to join the company of the
petitioner, but the respondent refused to join the company
of the petitioner. Though respondent admitted her
marriage with the petitioner but denied staying together
only for 15 days, however, she contended that she lived
with the petitioner for two years.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3334-DB
13. The petitioner in order to prove his case
examined himself as PW.1 and he has reiterated the
petition averments in the examination-in-chief and
produced the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P4. Ex.P1 is
the certified copy of the FIR which discloses that the
respondent has lodged the complaint against the petitioner
for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with
Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against the petitioner and his family
members. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the chargesheet
which discloses that the police have filed the chargesheet
against the petitioner and his family members. Ex.P3 is
the Marriage Invitation Card. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of
the FIR in Crime No.94/2013. During the course of cross
examination, it is elicited that the respondent had lodged
the complaint against the petitioner and his family
members, the said fact was admitted by PW.1. In rebuttal,
respondent was examined as RW.1. She has reiterated the
statement of objections averments in the examination-in-
chief. Further in the course of cross-examination, she has
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3334-DB
admitted that, she has lodged the complaint against the
petitioner and also admitted that she has filed the petition
against the petitioner claiming maintenance. From the
perusal of the evidence of both the parties, it is clear that
the respondent has lodged a complaint against the
petitioner and the FIR was registered against the
petitioner and his family members in FIR No.43/2012
which is marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P1 discloses that case has
been registered against the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of
IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act. Merely on the basis of complaint filed by the
respondent against the petitioner for cruelty, the Family
Judge has passed the decree of divorce. As per the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mangayakarasi (supra), the unwarranted and
unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand and such
other allegations against the husband and his family
members amounts to cruelty and it is a ground for
granting decree of divorce. Further, it is the case of the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3334-DB
petitioner that the respondent lived with the petitioner
only for 15 days and their marriage was not
consummated. Admittedly, the respondent is residing with
her parents for the last 10 years and the Family Court
considering the evidence on record was justified in passing
the impugned judgment. However, the Family Court has
awarded permanent alimony of Rs.4,00,000/- to the
respondent which is a meager amount and as the decree
was passed in the year 2014, we deem it appropriate to
modify the judgment passed by the Family Court only to
the extent of granting permanent alimony.
14. In view of the above discussion, we answer
point No.1 in affirmative.
15. Insofar as point No.2 is concerned, we proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and decree dated 14.10.2014
passed in MC No.47/2013 by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Raichur is modified.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3334-DB
iii. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only)
to the respondent as permanent alimony
within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
iv. Rest of the judgment is retained.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
CT;BN
