Karnataka High Court
Mrs. M P Ashwini vs Mr C D Sainath on 6 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
MFA No. 5751 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5751 OF 2021 (FC)
BETWEEN:
MRS. M.P. ASHWINI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O OF MR. C.D. SAINATH,
R/AT NO. 258, 9TH MAIN,
SAMPANGIRAM NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHAM A NEMICAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. C.D. SAINATH,
AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O C.B. DRUVARAJ,
R/AT NO. 62/1, II FLOOR,
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA 4TH MAIN ROAD,
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA
CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHUKATTU,
B.S.K. III STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. T.S. RAJARAJESHWARI., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.01.2020
PASSED IN M.C.NO. 700/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
MFA No. 5751 of 2021
THIS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
JUDGEMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
UMESH M. ADIGA, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
The respondent in MC.No.700/2014 on the file of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru (for short 'trial
court') preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and
decree dated 09.01.2020.
2. We refer to the parties as per their ranks before
the trial court.
3. Petitioner filed the petition under Section 13(1)
(1a) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 seeking relief of decree of
divorce. It was the case of the petitioner that he married
respondent on 30.05.2008 according to Hindu rituals and
customs. After marriage respondent-wife came to
matrimonial house situated at Bengaluru to lead marital
life. The parents of the petitioner were residing with him
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
as he was the only son to them. Initially relationship
between petitioner and respondent was cordial.
Thereafter, respondent started quarreling and harassing
the petitioner for one or the other reasons. She was
demanding money from the petitioner to pay the same to
her parents. Whenever he refused to pay the same, she
was threatening him that she would file complaint against
him to police alleging that he was treating her cruelly for
sake of dowry. Due to the said threat, he was paying
money to the respondent, whenever she had demanded.
4. It is further stated by the petitioner that earlier
respondent was married to one Venkatesh; The said
Venkatesh obtained decree of divorce from her. This fact
was suppressed by respondent and her parents from the
petitioner. The respondent was not preparing food and
she was always busy in conversation over mobile phone
with others. Mother of the respondent was office bearer of
Women's Association and she was interfering in personal
matter of the petitioner. She was trying to dominate over
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
him. Respondent and her mother were threatening
petitioner and his parents that "if they do not follow their
directions, then she would bring the members of Women's
Association and hold dharna in front of his house." Due
to the same, petitioner and his parents were following
directions of respondent and her mother.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that
respondent was harassing the parents of the petitioner
and forcing them to reside separately. Due to the said
harassment, mother of the petitioner died on 02.03.2013.
The father of the petitioner was aged about 70 years and
suffering from age related health problems. Even he was
unable to move independently. Respondent was falsely
alleging against him stating that he was trying to molest
her and sexually harass her. She was also threatening the
petitioner and his father that she would commit suicide by
leaving a death note stating that they were responsible for
death. Respondent intended to live separately from her in-
laws. She forced petitioner to live separately from his
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
parents. When he refused to do so, respondent started to
do all these illegal acts. From the behavior of the
respondent, petitioner was suspecting that she was
suffering from some psychological problems. She used to
suddenly get upset without any reasons and throw the
remote of the T.V, utensils and other things and
quarrelling with him and his parents. The petitioner also
came to know that the first husband of respondent i.e.
Venkatesh filed divorce petition in Case.No.1377/2006 and
in the said case, it was alleged that she had psychological
problems; Growth of her mind was not proportionate to
her age. The petitioner found it true.
6. It is also stated by the petitioner that the
respondent was frequently going to her parents house and
she was not returning to matrimonial home. Inspite of all
these harassments, the petitioner continued his
relationship with the respondent hoping that she would
correct herself.
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
7. It is further case of petitioner that on
25.01.2014, respondent assaulted his father and due to
the same, his father left home without giving any
information. Thereafter, the respondent informed the
same to the petitioner when he was in the shop. Petitioner
immediately left the shop in search of his father.
Respondent and her father locked the shop of the
petitioner and went to their house. Thereafter, respondent
neither returned to the matrimonial home nor she gave
the key of the shop. Respondent gave all sort of physical
and mental torture to the petitioner as well as to his
parents. It became impossible to lead marital life with
her. With these grounds, he prayed for decree of divorce
under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
8. The respondent contended that at the time of
her marriage with the petitioner, on his demand, her
parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- cash, house hold articles, one
kg gold, 5 kg silver and diamond jewelleries etc.
Subsequent to marriage on the demand of petitioner, her
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
father gave a car to him. Prior to marriage her parents
had informed the petitioner and his parents about her first
marriage and also divorce given by her first husband.
9. The respondent further contended that father of
the petitioner was moving inside the house without
clothes. He was sexually harassing her. When she was
sleeping in the room, he tried to touch her private parts.
She complained it to her husband and he refused to take
any action against his father. The petitioner and his father
was insisting and forcing her parents to gift a site to the
petitioner. Petitioner used to assault her several times.
She tolerated the same with an intention to continue
marital relationship with the petitioner. On 25.01.2014
the petitioner himself sent her out from his house. The
petitioner did not respond when she tried to contact him
and she could not meet him. He locked the matrimonial
home. Helplessly, she started residing in her parent's
house. Later on, she came to know that petitioner shifted
to another house without her knowledge. Due to all these
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
harassments, she lodged complaint against the petitioner
to police. She loves the petitioner and she intends to
continue her marital relationship with him. The grounds
urged in the petition are false. Therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
10. The trial court recorded the evidence of PWs.1,
2 and RW-1. Petitioner got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and
respondent got marked Ex.R1. The learned trial Judge
after hearing both the parties and appreciating the
evidence on record found that respondent was cruel
towards her husband and allowed the petition by
impugned judgment and granted decree of divorce.
11. We have heard the arguments of learned
counsel for both sides. We tried to conciliate both the
parties to continue their marital relationship but it was not
successful.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated
the grounds taken in the appeal memo and urged that the
trial court has not considered the pleadings and evidence
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
properly. There was no sufficient ground for decree of
divorce. The appellant never treated petitioner and his
parents cruelly, on the contrary, the petitioner and his
parents ill-treated her and harassed her. These facts were
not at all considered by the trial court. The trial court
came to a wrong conclusion, which needs interference by
this court.
13. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that
trial court appreciated the evidence properly and in right
perspective came to a right conclusion and it does not call
for any interference by this court.
14. Following question arise for our determination:
Whether the trial court erred in granting
decree of divorce to the petitioner?
15. Our answer to the above question is in the
Negative for the following reasons:
Both the side gave evidence and the trial Court
discussed the evidence in detail. It is the case of petitioner
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
that he did not make separate residence to his parents
therefore she was harassing him and she even went to an
extent of alleging against his father that he was trying to
outrage her modesty. Undisputedly, mother of the
petitioner died after marriage in 2013 due to cancer. His
father was aged more than 72 years and had been ailing
from age related diseases and became weak. As per the
contention of the petitioner, he was unable to walk
independently. These facts were not seriously disputed by
respondent-wife. In her cross examination, she admits
that her husband was taking care of her properly and she
had grievance against his parents. Looking to the status of
health and age of petitioner's father, it is difficult to
believe her evidence that her father-in-law tried to
sexually assault her. Medical reports produced by
petitioner pertaining to his father corroborates his
evidence. RW-1 in the cross examination stated that since
the father of petitioner was alive and hence she was not
ready to join him.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
16. Undisputedly, petitioner is the only son to his
parents. His mother was a cancer patient and died due to
the same in 2013. Father is aged about 72 years, suffering
from ill health. Under such circumstances, it was duty of
petitioner to take care of them. It was his legal and moral
duty. Preventing the same by the respondent would
definitely amounts to cruelty.
17. Looking to the evidence of both the parties, it
can be inferred that respondent making such allegations
against the father of the petitioner was only with an
intention to reside separately from the parents of
petitioner.
18. Respondent alleged that petitioner and his
parents harassed her for sake of dowry. She gave the
particulars of dowry given to petitioner. Except self serving
statement, she had not produced any materials to show
that her parents purchased them and gave to the
petitioner. If her parents purchased them to give them to
petitioner, then there should be receipts or records about
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
the payment of the amount of one Kg of gold, five kgs of
silver and household articles, etc. Even there is no
evidence to show that her parents purchased car to give it
to the petitioner.
19. RW-1 in the cross examination stated that it
was second marriage to both of them and it was a simple
marriage. She also admits that her husband was good but
father-in-law was not good. If her husband resides
separately then only she is ready to join him. She makes
allegation against husband in one breath and says that he
was good and also say that she is ready to live with him.
These facts corroborate the contention of petitioner that
those allegation were made to force him to live separately
and fulfill her demands.
20. Respondent even did not examine her parents
to show that they purchased gold, silver, diamond
ornaments, car and household articles to give to petitioner
so also their financial status. They are competent
witnesses to corroborate the case of the respondent. For
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
the reasons best known to the respondent they were not
examined.
21. The trial Judge appreciated the evidence of both
the parties and came to a right conclusion. Forcing
husband to reside away from his aged and ailing parents
or not to take care of them or making false allegation
about demand of dowry and the payment of dowry without
substantiating them and filing of false complaint to the
police against husband and his family members, definitely
amounts to cruelty. The petitioner during pendency of this
case had produced records pertaining to divorce
proceedings initiated by first husband of respondent. The
allegation in the said petition shows that respondent had
some psychological problems and her brain was not
developed proportionate to her age. This might be the
reasons for lack of compatibility between husband and
wife. Of course, the husband had not taken this ground for
divorce.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
22. Undisputedly, from 2014 both are residing
separately. It appears that the relationship between
them has irretrievably broken down. Considering all these
facts, the learned trial Judge granted the decree of
divorce.
23. For the above said reasons, there were
sufficient materials to grant the decree of divorce to the
petitioner. Considering the same, the trial court granted
the relief. We do not find any reasons to interfere in the
same.
24. For the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
above point in the negative and pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The judgment and decree dated 09.01.2020
passed by the Principal Judge, Family court,
Bengaluru in M.C.No.700/2014 is confirmed.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB
Registry is directed to send back the records along
with the copy of the judgment to the trial court.
All the pending I.As stands disposed off.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
AG
