Karnataka High Court
Leena Pyati vs P N Ravikiran on 25 November, 2024
-1-
MFA No.2184 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH 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.2184 OF 2022 (FC)
BETWEEN:
LEENA PYATI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
D/O LATE LOKANAGOWDA H.PYATI,
W/O P.N. RAVIKIRAN,
NO.39/78, GROUND FLOOR,
1ST E CROSS, REMCO LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALOORU - 560 040.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
P.N. RAVIKIRAN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O K.P. NAGARAJAPPA,
NO.6-38/1, 14TH CROSS,
22ND MAIN,
OPP: ANAND APARTMENTS
PADMANABHANAGAR
BENGALOORU - 560 070.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C. V. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DT.31.01.2022, PASSED IN MC NO.6878/2019, ON THE
FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13 (1)(i-a) OF
THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
-2-
MFA No.2184 of 2022
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 06.11.2024 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 by the respondent (wife) against the
judgment and decree dated 31.01.2022, passed in
M.C.No.6878/2019, on the file of learned I Addl. Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, (for short, `Family
Court').
2. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the
parties as per their ranks before the Family Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that:
The respondent herein - husband filed petition under
Section 13 (1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for decree
of divorce. It is the contention of the husband that the
appellant herein was his wife and their marriage was
solemnized on 27.09.2017 at Sri Adichunchanagiri
Samudaya Bhavana, Shivamogga District, according to the
customs and traditions prevailing in the Lingayath
community. After the marriage, his wife came to his
house to lead marital life. His marriage was not
consummated till filing of this petition; She had not
participated in the nuptial ceremony on the ground that
marriage reception was not properly arranged according to
her status and her dream of having lavish reception was
shattered; Thereafter, on one or the other reason, on
trivial issues she was insulting him, abusing him, and
some times, assaulting him in the bedroom; His wife was
insulting him on the ground that he was having meager
salary and not in a position to spend lavishly to fulfill her
desire; He has not made any savings in her name; She
was also insisting that he has to send his parents out of
his house and he should not permit any of his relatives to
visit the matrimonial house; She was also misbehaving
with his parents and relatives.
4. It is the further case of the husband that few
months after the marriage, father of the appellant met
with an accident and died; The appellant blamed him
saying "he was a misfortune to her family and because of
him, her father met with an accident and died". She was
also suspecting the fidelity of the respondent. Whenever
he used to speak to any woman colleague and his cousin
sisters, she used to abuse him that he had illicit
relationship with them; regularly she was checking his
mobile phone to know the messages he receives and calls
he made; he had an opportunity to go to France on his
job; he requested his wife to join him; but she did not
agree for the same. She never behaved properly with
him, his parents, relatives and friends.
5. The husband further stated that his wife was
repeatedly sending abusive messages to him on his
whatsapp and also forcing him to give divorce, since she
was not at all interested to continue marital relationship
with him; She was also sending messages that "She would
give divorce to him and search for another groom and live
happy life as she was not at all happy with him". In this
way, his wife treated him cruelly and made his life
miserable, which forced him to seek divorce under Section
13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act.
6. The appellant appeared before the Family Court
and engaged an advocate. Thereafter, neither the
appellant nor her counsel participated in further
proceedings till disposal.
7. The Family Court recorded the evidence. The
respondent examined himself as PW-1 got marked Exs.P-1
to P-7. The appellant neither cross-examined PW-1 nor led
evidence on her behalf.
8. The Family Court after hearing the respondent and
appreciating the materials available on record, allowed the
petition and granted decree of divorce.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for both side
and perused the materials placed on record.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the Family court has not given proper opportunity to
the appellant to file written statement, cross-examine
PW-1 and lead her evidence. The Family Court hurriedly
disposed of the matter without giving opportunity to the
appellant to prosecute the matter. The findings of the
Family Court is erroneous. Therefore, prayed to set aside
the impugned judgment and remand the matter with a
direction to the Family Court to give proper opportunity to
the appellant to prosecute the case effectively and
thereafter, dispose of the matter.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent has taken
us through the pleadings, as well as evidence and also
watsapp messages sent by the appellant to the respondent
from 16.07.2018 to 22.11.2019 and submits that
appellant herself repeatedly forced the respondent to give
divorce. Even she has stated in some of the messages
that she hates him and if he gives divorce, she would
choose another boyfriend and live happily with him. She
cannot live with him and lead marital life. Because of her
behavior and subjecting him cruelly, he filed the petition
for divorce. She deliberately did not appear before the
Family Court and she was watching behind the bush. She
is not all interested to lead marital life. This appeal is filed
just to harass him. There is no bona fide reason for the
appellant to file this appeal and she wants to protract the
litigation. The respondent filed a divorce petition before
the Family Court during the year 2019 and it was disposed
of during the year 2022. He is aged about 36 years and
he wants to marry again. Just to harass him and to see
that he should not marry, the appellant filed this appeal
and got an ex parte order of stay of the impugned
judgment of the Family Court. When she was not at all
interested to lead marital life, she had no cause of action
to file the appeal.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent further
submits that appellant is still working as a Software
Engineer in the very same Company wherein she was
working at the time of marriage and appellant is earning
more income than that of the respondent. She was not at
all dependant on the earnings of the respondent. With
these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal with cost.
13. Following questions arise for our determination :
(i) Whether the learned trial Judge is justified
in granting the decree of divorce on the ground of
cruelty?
(ii) Whether the learned trial Judge has failed
to give proper opportunity to the appellant to
prosecute the case effectively?
Our answer on the above questions is in the negative
for the following reasons :
14. The grounds of divorce are mentioned in detail in
the above paras. The respondent in his evidence has
reiterated the said facts. His evidence was not denied or
challenged by the appellant before the Family Court. The
relationship between the appellant and respondent is not
in dispute. Except urging that the Family Court had not
given opportunity, the appellant has not disclosed her
defences for reconsideration of the matter. She has stated
that she still loves her husband and she wants to continue
marital relationship with the respondent. The Family Court
did not give her proper opportunity to prosecute the
matter effectively. Hence, she prayed to set aside
impugned judgment and remand the matter to the trial
court with a direction to give opportunity to appellant to
file written statement, cross examine Pw-1 and lead her
evidence and decide this case.
15. The learned trial Judge in the impugned
judgment discussed the evidence given by the respondent
in detail; repetition of the same is not required.
16. The appellant had sent several watsapp
messages to respondent. Copy of the same is produced at
Ex.P-7. It commences from July 2018 to November 2019
and runs about 127 pages. The said messages clearly
indicates that appellant had no interest to continue marital
relationship with the respondent. She blamed him for so
many reasons, including his attachment with his parents
and closest relatives. Even she alleged that he was
responsible for the death of her father and he killed her
feelings, as well as respect of her father. She repeatedly
insisted the respondent to give divorce to her, so that both
can live separately and live happily. She can search for
- 10 -
another groom to marry. Even she stated that she had
already intimated the marriage broker to search a groom
for her second marriage.
17. On going through all these whatsapp messages,
any prudent man can infer that she was not at all
interested to lead marital life with the respondent. The
said watsapp messages corroborate the case of the
respondent.
18. It is pertinent to note that respondent contends
that marriage was not consummated; Though marriage
had taken place in September 2017, she never co-
operated with the respondent and permitted him to lead
marital life. From the messages referred above, it
appears to be probable. Admittedly she had no issue from
the said marriage with respondent. All these facts and
circumstances indicate that respondent had suffered in the
hands of the appellant and he was subjected to cruelty
and she made his marital life miserable.
- 11 -
19. The divorce petition was filed by the husband
before the Family Court on 20.12.2019. The order sheet
reveals that appellant appeared before the trial court
through her advocate on 27.02.2020. After getting few
adjournments, on 19.02.2021, the Family Court recorded
that "objections were not filed". Thereafter, neither the
appellant nor her counsel appeared before the Family
Court to prosecute the matter. The impugned judgment
was passed on 31.01.2022. Though the matter was
pending for more than an year after commencement of the
trial, the appellant did not appear before the Family Court.
She has not explained as to why she could not attend
before the Family Court to effectively prosecute the
matter. At no point of time before the Family Court,
neither the appellant nor her counsel submitted that both
parties were trying to settle the dispute. If really she was
intended to settle the matter, she could have submitted
the same before the trial Court. Therefore, the contention
of the appellant that she intended to settle the matter
amicably and continue her marital relationship with the
- 12 -
respondent is not believable. Deliberately she did not
appear before the Family Court and prosecuted the case
though it was pending for more than two years.
20. There are no justifiable grounds to interfere in
the findings of the Family Court. The learned trial Judge
has not hurriedly disposed of the matter. The learned trial
Judge has granted a reasonable opportunity to the
appellant at every stage of the proceedings though there
was no representation on her behalf. Appellant did not
avail the opportunity without any justifiable reasons.
Hence, on that ground impugned judgment cant be set
aside. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the
submission of learned advocate for the respondent that
this appeal is filed with intention to harass respondent and
to see that he shall not get married again, appears to be
probable. For aforesaid reasons we are of the opinion that
appeal is devoid of merits.
21. For the aforesaid discussion, we proceed to pass
the following :
- 13 -
ORDER
The Appeal is dismissed.
The impugned judgment and decree dated
31.01.2022, passed by the learned I Addl. Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C.No.6878/2019, is
confirmed.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment
along with records to the concerned Family Court without
delay.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
bk/
