Ganesh Naik B vs Deepa R
2024 Latest Caselaw 27440 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Ganesh Naik B vs Deepa R on 15 November, 2024

                              -1-
                                       MFA No.230 of 2024



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                        PRESENT
       THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                           AND
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.230 OF 2024 (FC)
BETWEEN:

GANESH NAIK B,
S/O BEEMA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O GOPAL BHAT,
SAMRUDHI NILAYA,
2ND CROSS, BLOCK GOPALAGOWDA,
EXTENSION WARD NO.17,
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
TALUK AND DISTRICT,
PIN NO: 577 201.
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.VASANTHA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:
DEEPA R,
W/O GANESH NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/O AGRAHARA TANDA VILLAGE,
SAKARAYAPATNA HOBALI,
KADURU TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT,
PIN: 577 548.
                                             ...RESPONDENT
(VIDE ORDER DATED 31/07/2024,
 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

       THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 02.12.2023 PASSED IN MC NO.116/2023 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13-1(ia) AND
(i-b) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AND PETITIONER IS DIRECTED TO
PAY RS.5000/- TO THE RESPONDENT TOWARDS LITIGATION COST.
                               -2-
                                           MFA No.230 of 2024



     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 30.10.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, UMESH M. ADIGA J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING::


CORAM:     HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
           and
           HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA


                       CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree

dated 02.12.2023, passed in M.C.No.116/2023, on the file of

Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga, (for short,

`Family Court'), by the petitioner.

2. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties

as per their ranks before the Family Court.

3. The appellant/petitioner filed petition under

Section 13(1)(i-a) (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking

decree for divorce. In the petition, he stated that his

marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 13.12.2019

at Agrahara Tanda of Kadur Taluk, in accordance with Hindu

customs and rituals; It was registered in the office of the

Sub-Registrar, at Kadur on 10.02.2020; They lived together

in his house at Shivamogga till 17.01.2020; During the said

period, respondent was harassing him and treating him

cruelly; He tolerated the said harassment for some time;

Thereafter, due to intolerable harassment, he could not

continue his marital relationship with respondent. Their

marriage was not consummated; On 17.01.2020,

respondent deserted him and started residing permanently in

her parents' house; In spite of his repeated requests, she

did not return to his house to lead marital life. Therefore, he

prayed for grant of decree of divorce.

4. The respondent-wife admitted their relationship.

According to her case, petitioner-husband was ill-treating her

and harassing her for the sake of dowry; The elders of the

family and her parents tried to settle the dispute, however,

it went in vein; The respondent was looking after him

properly and she has all love and affection towards him, but

the petitioner has no love and affection towards her; It was

his third marriage with the respondent; He had divorced his

previous two wives; Suppressing his earlier two marriages

from her and her parents, he married her; The petitioner

has a habit of marrying and divorcing within a short period;

There are no justifiable reasons for seeking divorce from the

petitioner; She has not deserted the petitioner and on the

contrary, he only sent her out from his house, with a

direction to bring dowry from her parents. With these

reasons, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Both parties led their evidence before the Family

Court. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and got

marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. The respondent examined herself as

RW-1.

6. The learned trial Judge after hearing both parties

and appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the

petition by the impugned judgment.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and perused the materials placed on record.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that

appellant proved the ill-treatment and harassment meted to

him by the respondent-wife. But the Family Court did not

appreciate the evidence properly. The respondent admittedly

left the company of the appellant on 17.01.2020 and

thereafter, did not return back to his house to lead the

marital life. The petitioner filed this petition after a period of

two years of desertion by the respondent. That fact was not

considered by the Family Court. Therefore, the findings of

the Family Court is erroneous and interference by this Court

is required. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

9. On perusal of the records, it is seen that there are

inconsistencies in respect of date of marriage in the petition,

as well as in the evidence. However, it is not in dispute that

their marriage was solemnized on 13.12.2019. Ex.P-1 -

marriage invitation card shows that marriage was held on

13.12.2019. Therefore, there is no need to give much

importance to the mistake in date of marriage stated by the

appellant in the petition, as well as in the evidence of PW-1.

10. In the petition, as well as in the evidence,

petitioner stated that respondent developed hostile attitude

towards him and started ill-treating him. The respondent

was addicted to all the bad habits and she was manhandling

him for silly reasons. She was careless towards him and

she left his company on 17.01.2020 and thereafter, never

returned to her matrimonial home. With these reasons, he

prayed for granting the decree of divorce.

11. In his cross-examination, the respondent was able

to show that he was not deposing true facts before the

Court. He admitted in his cross-examination that he lived

with the respondent in his house at Shivamogga for one and

half months, thereafter he stayed with the respondent in

Shikaripura for about 20 days and from Shikaripura, again

they came back to Shivamogga and stayed together for

20 days. According to the said admissions, for nearly 85 to

90 days, both of them resided together. Hence, the

contention of the petitioner that respondent deserted him

from 17.01.2020 appears to be incorrect.

12. In his further cross-examination, it was suggested

to him that parents of the respondent tried their level best to

settle the dispute between them, however, due to his

adamant behavior, he did not settle the dispute. He also

denied suggestions that he has a habit of marrying and

divorcing them within a short period of marriage. He

admitted that he married thrice, including the respondent

and he had divorced his previous two wives. Therefore, the

contention of the respondent before the Family Court that

petitioner was having the bad habit of marrying and

divorcing within a short period is probable. He is playing

with the life of women by abusing the process of law.

13. Before the Family Court, it was contended by the

respondent that she filed a petition under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance and because of the same, he

filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights and thereafter,

this divorce petition. The fact of filing of cases were in

dispute. The contentions of respondent is probable.

Appellant had filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu

Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. When the

Family Court granted the relief and granted two months

time to the respondent to join the appellant, she did not join

according to the contention of the appellant. Then he should

have filed an execution petition to execute the said order.

Instead of that, he has filed present divorce petition within

a short period from the date of disposal of petition filed

under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. This fact also shows

that petition filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was

not a bona fide petition. Just to avoid his liability to pay

maintenance, said petition appears to have been filed.

14. From the records, it appears that both petitioner

and respondent have hardly lived for three to four months

together and led matrimonial life. The appellant was unable

to prove that respondent was treating him cruelly and made

it impossible to live with her. Legally no valid grounds are

made out, except saying that she was cruelly treating him.

The vague averments cannot be a ground for dissolving of a

sacred relationship between husband and wife.

15. The learned trial Judge in detail considered the

case of both the parties and rightly dismissed the petition.

There are no grounds to interfere in the said findings.

16. It appears, the respondent filed petition under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming for maintenance. Since

respondent remained absent in this case, it is not clear as to

whether any maintenance was awarded in the said case.

There are no merits in the grounds of appeal. Hence, appeal

deserves to be dismissed with costs.

17. For the aforesaid discussion, we proceed to pass

the following :

ORDER

The Appeal is dismissed with compensatory cost of

Rs.25,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent.

The impugned judgment and decree dated

02.12.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family

Court. Shivamogga, in M.C.No.116/2023, is confirmed.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order along

with records to the concerned Family Court without delay.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/-

(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

bk/