Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anupama vs Sri N.Y. Gundu Rao on 22 November, 2024
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
MFA No. 202306 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
M.F.A NO. 202306 OF 2024 (MC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANUPAMA
W/O N.Y. GUNDU RAO
D/O R. EARANNA
AGE:39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
C/O R. EARANNA
ASST. TRAFFIC INSPECTOR
KSRTC, R/O MEHABOOB COLONY
OPP:NOORANI MASJID
SINDHANUR TOWN
TALUK:SINDHANUR
Digitally signed by
SHAKAMBARI DIST:RAICHUR-586 121
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. PUNITH MARKAL AND
SRI. PRASHANTH WAJANTRI AND
SRI. SHARANPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SRI. N.Y. GUNDU RAO
S/O YALLAPPA
AGE:41 YARS
OCC:PSI AT YADGIRI P.S.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
MFA No. 202306 of 2024
TALUK:SHAHAPUR, DIST:YADGIRI
R/O NEER MANVI VILLAGE
TALUK:MANVI, DIST:RAICHUR-585 121
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE
ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 18.03.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT SINDHANUR IN MC NO.24/2015 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THIS DAY,
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR J., DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
MFA No. 202306 of 2024
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
The present appeal is preferred against the judgment
and decree dated 18th March 2024 passed in MC
No.24/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Sindhanur, whereby the petition filed by the husband of
the appellant i.e. respondent in this appeal under Section
13(1)(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter
referred to as the `Act') was allowed by granting a decree
of divorce by dissolving the marriage between petitioner
and respondent solemnized on 30.05.2013 at Neermanavi
Village.
2. Parties to this appeal are referred as per their
rank before the Tribunal.
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that;
Marriage of petitioner and respondent was
solemnized on 30.05.2013 at Neermanavi Yellamma
Temple according to the rites, rituals prevailing in their
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
community. When the marriage took place, the petitioner-
husband was working as PSI at Kataka Chincholli
Tq.Bhalki, Bidar Dist. After marriage, respondent-wife
joined the petitioner at his work place and resided with
him for two months. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred
to Yadgir Town police station and worked for sixteen
months there. During that period, respondent stayed with
him hardly for three months. It is stated that in the
meanwhile, she conceived a child and went to her parents
house in the month of May 2014. She gave birth to a male
child on 12.6.2014. She did not come back to the
petitioners' house despite several requests by him.
4. It is alleged by the petitioner that, respondent
filed false complaint against him at Yadgir Police Station
on 4.12.2014 falsely alleging that he has harassed her,
tortured her and humiliated her and demanded dowry. To
that effect, a crime was registered against him for the
offences under Section 498-A, 504, 307 of IPC and Section
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (in short the `DP Act'). It
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
is alleged by the petitioner, during the stay of respondent
with him at Kataka Chincholli and Yadgiri she extended all
sorts of physical and mental cruelties on him. It is alleged
that when she conducted the naming ceremony of his
child, it was not intimated to him. Always she used to
abuse him and his family members in filthy language. She
has not attended all household activities. It is further
stated by the petitioner that, after she wantonly deserted
him, filed a petition in Crl.Misc.No.313/2015 before the
Prl. JMFC, Sindhanur claiming maintenance. It is the
specific case of the petitioner that respondent hardly
stayed for 5 to 6 months with him. She also filed a Civil
Suit in OS No.273/2015 before the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.),
Sindhanur and sought ex-parte injunction against him. It
is further alleged by the petitioner that, inspite of several
requests, persuations, respondent failed to join him. Even
she ventured to publish some unfounded allegations
against him in the newspaper. The said publications are
utterly false and caused serious effect on his service,
character and conduct. Filing of a false complaint against
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
him and publication of defamatory matters in the
newspapers shows that she has inflicted all sorts of cruelty
on him. Because of this, he has suffered mentally and
suffered lot in his career. Thus, he alleges that in view of
the conduct of the respondent, his marriage with
respondent has been irretrievably broken down. Even she
lodged a complaint against him before the SP, Lokayukta,
Raichur, IG, Kalaburagi and SP, Yadgiri. She also filed
complaint before the State Human Rights Commission for
Women, Bengaluru to the Home Minister, Govt. of
Karnataka, DGP, Bengaluru, SP, Raichur, Human Rights
Commission, Benglauru. Even she ventured to file a
complaint against his brother at the time of his
appointment in Police Department. Thus, he alleges that
on one or the other grounds, she is intending to harass
him and his family members. It is stated by him that, on
13.1.2015, his father went to the parents house of the
respondent and requested her to join the petitioner but,
she flatly refused, therefore, the petitioner had filed the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
petition seeking for dissolution of his marriage with
respondent.
5. Before the trial Court, respondent appeared and
filed the objection statement denying all the allegations
made in the petition. It is contended that, the petitioner
has not approached the court with clean hands. Before the
marriage as per the instructions of the petitioner, his
parents demanded Rs.25,00,000/- dowry, a site
measuring 60 x 40 at Adarsha Colony, Sindhanur, 15 tolas
of gold and additional dowry of 25,000/- towards cloth.
Her father is working as Traffic Inspector in NEKRTC and
her mother is doing cloth business, as the petitioner was a
PSI, they agreed to give the dowry. Accordingly, the
marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was
solemnised on 30.5.2013 by giving Rs.10 lakhs cash, 10
tolas of gold and agreed to give site. Her parents also
gave household articles worth Rs.2 lakhs. It is contended
that, after marriage, she lead marital life with him for
three months and thereafter, it was petitioner who sent
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
her to her parents house on the ground that there would
be renovation of his quarters. For three months she stayed
with her parents. During that period, it is contended that
petitioner never visited her.
6. It is further contended that, when she was with
petitioner in Kataka Chincholli, he used to tease her for
not giving sufficient dowry. At Kataka Chincholli one
woman by name Nirmala was in contact with the petitioner
over his telephone. When this fact was brought to the
notice of parents of the petitioner, they gave threat to her
and they did not bother. After conceiving a child, when she
came to Sindhanur, the petitioner never cared for her
medical check up, so also her in-laws, he told her to
undergo abortion and also gave certain tablet for abortion.
It is further contended that, always petitioner used to say
that he married her to do the household work. He is a
womanizer. He harassed her both mentally, physically.
During her stay at Yadgir she conceived and gave birth to
a son. The petitioner did not attend the naming ceremony
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
as a site 40 x 60 ft. was not given to him. He never visited
her after birth of the child. Her parents gave assurance to
give a site to him. When the site was not given, he sent
her to her parent's house. It is further contended that,
the petitioner's parents used to say that they had the
intention to perform the marriage of the petitioner with
the elder daughter of his mother in-law as they were ready
to meet the demand of dowry. She admits that, she had
filed complaints against him and so also filed petition
claiming maintenance. It is further contended that, the
petitioner is more interested in one Vijayalakshmi rather
than respondent. Respondent kept mum as petitioner is an
educated person and PSI. She contended that she has got
materials about his character and attitude. She was always
a dutiful wife and ready to lead happy marital life with the
petitioner considering her future and future of her son. No
cruelty is attributed by her against the petitioner.
Therefore, she prays to dismiss the petition.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
7. To prove the case of the petitioner, he himself
entered the witness box as PW.1 and examined
Siddramappa and Yellappa as PWs. 2, 3 and got marked
Ex.P1 to P24 and closed petitioner's evidence. To rebut the
evidence of the petitioner, respondent herself entered the
witness box as RW.1 and examined one more witness by
name R.Eranna as RW.2 and got marked Ex.R1 to R15 and
closed respondent's evidence.
8. The learned trial Court, on hearing the
arguments and on assessment of the evidence held that
the petitioner is able to prove that respondent subjected
him to cruelty as defined under the provisions of Hindu
Marriage Act,1955(in short `the HM Act') and considering
the oral and documentary evidence, came to the
conclusion that, petitioner is entitled for dissolution of his
marriage with respondent and passed a decree of divorce
to that effect. This is how, now the respondent-wife is
before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and
decree.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
9. The learned counsel for the appellant-
respondent submits that though most of factual features
narrated in the petition are admitted but, the petitioner
has not proved the so called cruelty, harassment as
alleged in the petition. He further submits that the learned
trial Court relying upon the self-serving evidence of PW.1
and his witnesses has wrongly concluded that, there was a
cruelty attributed by the respondent against the petitioner.
In fact, it is appellant-respondent who was subjected to
harassment by the petitioner. Therefore, he would submit
that the findings of the learned trial Court would not
attract the provisions of `Cruelty' as defined under the
provisions of HM Act.
10. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for appellant-respondent submits that, the son of the
petitioner and respondent is studying and to meet his
educational expenses, it requires minimum Rs.3,10,000/-
per year and also she is under treatment and to meet the
food, clothing, medical expenses, house rent, festival
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
expenses, she also requires minimum Rs.35,000/- per
month. She has filed a memo of calculation along with
medical records.
11. As against this submission, learned counsel for
petitioner-husband submits that, whatever the allegations
made by the petitioner in her objection statement are not
true. Wantonly she deserted him. During her stay with him
it was she who harassed him mentally. She never
respected him and his parents as well as his family
members. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that
series of complaints, civil litigation, petition for claiming
maintenance are filed by the respondent. The very conduct
of the respondent shows that, she is not intending to join
him and harass him in one way or the other. Even she has
published defamatory news to defame the petitioner by
giving false information. This has degraded him in the
eyes of society in general and his department in particular.
His service has been affected because of several false
complaints filed by the respondent. Though she claims
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
educational expenses, medical expenses but, she is not
entitled as claimed by her. With the consent of respondent
and child the admission was taken at Mangaluru School by
paying lakhs together as admission fees. But, the
respondent brought his child back from the said school and
admitted him at Bengaluru. It shows her conduct. She is
quite healthy and is in habit of harassing the petitioner by
one way or the other. She is not entitled for any
maintenance or the expenses. However, it is fairly
submitted that, he will take care of educational expenses
of his son.
12. In support of his submission, the learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following
judgments:
Sl. Case No. DD date
No.
1 Kiran Joti Maini vs. Anish 15.07.2024
Promod Patel - SLP (Cril)
No.672-675 and 1168-1171 of
2 Smt. Pratibha Singh vs. Vineet 08.02.2023
(High Court of Karnataka)
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
3 Smt. Poonam Alias Pinki vs. 31.10.2022
Amit Kumar Alias Monu - First
Appeal No.501/2009 (High
Court of Allahabad)
4 Sri. Daniel Anand vs. Smt. G.N. 13.07.2017
(High Court of Karnataka)
5 Smt. Madhavi vs. Shri. 25.01.2023
Jaiprakash Narain - - WP
No.2404/2021 (High Court of
Karnataka)
6 Smt. Chand Dhavan vs. 11.06.1993
Jawaharlal Dhawan - 1993 SCC
(3) 406
13. Even the record of this case reveals that,
mediation sittings were conducted so as to reconcile the
dispute between both the sides, but, has failed. From
perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner as
well as respondent, they show that this respondent has
filed petition claiming maintenance in Crl.Misc.313/2015
on the file of Prl.JMFC, Sindhanur. So also published
articles against the petitioner in the newspapers, filed
complaints against the petitioner before Lokayukta Police,
PS Raichur,Yadgir, DGP Bengaluru, Home Minister, GOK,
Human Rights Commission, State of Karnataka, the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
aforesaid documents are marked in this case as per Ex.P1
to P3, P4 to P8, P10 to P20 and P23 respectively. The
editor of newspaper called `Namma Kidi' has given a reply
to the petitioner stating that the information so published
was furnished by the respondent-wife. Ex.P.24 is the
marriage invitation card which is not in dispute. She too
has produced R10 to R13 i.e. certified copy of the FIR,
complaint, charge sheet and copy of the petition in
Maintenance Case, so also a copy of the interim
application at Ex.R14.
14. On perusal of all these documents and
allegations made in the petition as well as counter
allegations made by the respondent in her objection so
also allegations made in the appeal memo and respective
affidavits, it appears that, for a considerable period of
time, both petitioner and respondent shared
incompatibility and conduct of the respondent shows that,
she is in the habit of filing complaints against her own
husband not only before the police station but, also to the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
higher authorities of the petitioner i.e. Police Department
in which the petitioner is working as PSI.
15. As per the submission of the petitioner, this has
caused irritation, harassment, threat and intimidation.
When the petitioner specifically pleaded about the
behaviour of the respondent during her stay with him and
at different stages of dispute, reconciliation and complaints
from time to time were referred which is discussed by the
trial Court in the course of the judgment, both petitioner
and respondent shared domestic incompatibility.
16. So far as mental cruelty is concerned, the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr.
N.G. Dastane vs. MRS. S. Dastane, reported in (1975)
2 SCC 326 is worth consideration. The relevant extract of
the judgment is reproduced as under:
"The question whether the misconduct
complained of constitutes cruelty and the like for
divorce purposes is determined primarily by its
effect upon the particular person complaining of the
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
acts. The question is not whether the conduct
would be cruel to a reasonable person or a person
of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it
would have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse.
That which may be cruel to one person may be
laughed off by another, and what may not be cruel
to an individual under one set of circumstances
may be extreme cruelty under another set of
circumstances. [American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn.,
Vol. 24, p. 206] ". The Court has to deal, not with
an ideal husband and an ideal wife (assuming any
such exist) but with the particular man and woman
before it. The ideal couple or a near-ideal one will
probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial
court for, even if they may not be able to drown
their differences, their ideal attitudes may help
them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and
failures. As said by Lord Reid in his speech
in Gollins v. Gollins [(1963) 2 All ER 966, 970] ,
In matrimonial cases we are not concerned with
the reasonable man, as we are in cases of
negligence. We are dealing with this man and this
woman and the fewer a priori assumptions we
make about them the better. In cruelty cases one
can hardly ever even start with a presumption that
the parties are reasonable people, because it is
hard to imagine any cruelty case ever arising if
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
both the spouses think and behave as reasonable
people.
The said judgment still holds the field and is
source of wisdom time and again in respect of
mental cruelty."
17. The aforesaid judgment was referred by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments. In case of
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4
SCC 511 enumerated illustrative instances of human
behaviour which may be relevant for dealing with the
cases of mental cruelty.
"No uniform standard can ever be laid down for
guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate
some instances of human behaviour which may be
relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental
cruelty". The instances indicated in the succeeding
paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life
of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and
suffering as would not make possible for the parties
to live with each other could come within the broad
parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) xxxxx
(iii) xxxxx
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The
feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a
long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and
humiliating treatment calculated to torture,
discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and
behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical
and mental health of the other spouse. The
treatment complained of and the resultant danger
or apprehension must be very grave, substantial
and weighty.
(vii) xxxxx
(viii) xxxxx
(ix) xxxxx
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a
whole and a few isolated instances over a period of
years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct
must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period,
where the relationship has deteriorated to an
extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a
spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely
difficult to live with the other party any longer, may
amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) xxxxx
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have
intercourse for considerable period without there
being any physical incapacity or valid reason may
amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) xxxxx
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of
continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded
that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The
marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a
legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in
such cases, does not serve the sanctity of
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for
the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such
like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."
18. If the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Dastane supra as well as Samar Ghosh
supra, are applied to the present facts of the case, PW.1 in
categorical terms has stated about the attitude of the
respondent throughout her stay with him making so many
allegations against him alleging that he is having illicit
relationship with some other lady etc.. She has lodged a
complaint against him and published unfounded matters
and allegations against him in Nimma Kidi newspaper
which was circulated on 31.3.2015, 15.4.2015, 30.4.2015,
15.5.2015 and 1.6.2015. The said matter published in the
newspapers which has wide circulation in State of
Karnataka is mischievous and the veracity of the
allegations has not been substantiated. These publications
have seriously affected his service, character and conduct.
She has also made the allegations of bigamous marriage
without any proof.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
19. These publications so published in the
newspapers and filing of a complaint against him are not
denied by the respondent. Even she is unable to examine
any of the witnesses to show that this petitioner is
involved in illegal activities of which she has got proof of
photos. The learned trial Court has discussed all these
aspects in the course of its judgment and has arrived at a
conclusion that whole allegations made by respondent-wife
are not true. She had entered the witness box and
substantiated her contention and examined RW.2, the
learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence of PWs.1
to 3 and RW.1 and 2 and has come to the conclusion that
there is cruelty, harassment of the petitioner at the hands
of the respondent-wife. She had made defamatory
statement against him and again expresses her willingness
to join him and lead a happy marital life. As rightly
observed by the trial Court, if really the respondent
intended to lead happy marital life with the petitioner, she
would have stopped making allegations against him. Even
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
during the course of cross-examination, she made
allegations against him stating that the petitioner is having
illicit relations with some lady and she has given a paper
publication to that effect and justifies her action even
during her cross-examination. It shows her attitude
towards the petitioner-her husband. Even she has not filed
any petition against the petitioner seeking restoration of
conjugal rights before any Court. It is conceded that no
notice is issued to the petitioner to take her back. It is
observed by the trial Court that, this conduct of the
respondent shows that she is not ready to go back to the
petitioner and lead a matrimonial life with him.
20. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the
Apex Court in Dastane supra as well as illustrative
examples given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Samar
Ghosh go to establish that both petitioner and respondent
have shared domestic incompatibility, it is not possible to
continue their marriage. It is equally well-settled that,
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
lodging of false complaint amounts to cruelty K.Srinivas
Rao vs. D.A.Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226.
21. If the aforesaid pronouncements are tested on
the anvil of present factual set up then it appears that for
very long time from 2013 onwards after leaving the house
of the petitioner for the purpose of delivery of child,
parties to this petition shared domestic dispute and
irritability and mental cruelty inflicted by the wife over her
husband through her conduct and through her denial to
reside with him despite several requests and persuasions.
If the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and the evidence of RW.1
and 2 and answers given by RW.1 in the cross-
examination, if cumulatively read, it appears that learned
trial Court has rightly allowed the petition seeking decree
of divorce filed by the petitioner and granted a decree
because of long standing dispute itself is a mental cruelty
to a party who intends to live in domestic relationship and
peace.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
22. So far as permanent alimony ordered by the
Tribunal is concerned, respondent has not challenged the
same by preferring any cross-objection or cross-appeal
but, however, learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon some judgments with regard to grant of maintenance
whereas, counsel for respondent also relied upon the
aforenoted judgments.
23. The aforesaid judgments relied upon by
respondent-appellant speaks with regard to grant of
permanent alimony based upon the age and employment
of parties, maintenance of minor children, conduct of
parties, income of the parties, financial condition, standard
of living of parties, physical condition of the parties. etc.
24. In this case, petitioner is working as PSI which
is not in dispute. But, while granting the permanent
alimony or expenses towards children, one has to keep in
mind the status of the parties.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
25. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly
concedes that, the respondent would take care of the
educational expenses of his son. So, every year he has to
take care of such educational expenses till his son attains
majority. The calculation shall have to be given by the
respondent-wife to the petitioner as per the prescribed
fees of the respective schools where their child is
admitted.
26. As no appeal is preferred with regard to grant
of permanent alimony, as the trial court has granted
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) as permanent alimony,
the petitioner shall deposit the same before the trial Court,
if not deposited, within two months from the date of this
order and furnish the acknowledgement to this Court.
27. With this view, the appeal filed by the
appellant-respondent - wife is liable to be dismissed and
accordingly, it is dismissed.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8745-DB
Send a copy of this judgment to the trial Court
forthwith.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
SK/-
