Karnataka High Court

Aditya Koduru vs Smt Deepa Deshmukh on 30 September, 2024

                                                              -1-
                                                                       NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB
                                                                       MFA No. 2097 of 2019




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                        DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

                                                           PRESENT
                                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
                                                              AND
                                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
                                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2097 OF 2019 (FC)
                                 BETWEEN:

                                 ADITYA KODURU,
                                 AGE:34 YEARS,
                                 SON OF:
                                 SRI.K. VENKATA RANGANATHA MURTHY,
                                 RESIDING AT: 704, 'B' BLOCK,
                                 ROSA ROYALE APARTMENTS,
                                 OPPOSITE CROWN BUILDING,
                                 HIRANANDANI E STATE,
                                 G.B.ROAD, PATLIPADA,
                                 THANE (W) MUMBAI-400 006.
                                                                                ...APPELLANT
                                 (BY SRI. R.R. DESAI, ADVOCATE)

                                 AND:

                                 SMT. DEEPA DESHMUKH,
                                 AGE:MAJOR,
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: HIGH COURT OF
                                 WIFE OF: SRI. ADITYA KODURU,
KARNATAKA                        RESIDING AT: NO.929,
                                 17TH CROSS, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
                                 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 078.
                                                                             ...RESPONDENT
                                 (BY SRI. K.G. KAMATH, ADVOCATE)

                                       THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS
                                 ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2018,
                                 PASSED IN MC. NO.4458/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
                                 JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION
                                 FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,
                                 1955.
                               -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB
                                        MFA No. 2097 of 2019




    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)

This is respondent's appeal against the judgment

and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,

Bengaluru (for short 'trial court')in M.C.No.4458/2016

dated 07.12.2018.

2. We refer to the parties as per their ranks before

the trial court.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was

married to respondent on 26.12.2012 at Woodlands Hotel,

Richmond town, Bengaluru, as per Hindu rites and

customs. Their marriage was registered on 10.06.2013

before the Registrar of Marriage, Banashankari, Bengaluru

vide marriage registration certificate No.BSK-HMI149-

2013-14. Both petitioner and respondent were working in

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

the same team for TCS company, Bengaluru. Both of

them fell in love and persuaded their parents to consent

for their marriage and thereafter married.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that

respondent forced her and blackmailed her to marry him

by saying that "he would commit suicide if she refused to

marry him". In view of the same, she agreed to marry

him. She was the only daughter to her parents. Her

parents performed her marriage by spending huge amount

of more than 15 lakhs. Gold jewelleries, silver articles and

also household articles were given to them during the

marriage, as per the demand of the respondent and his

parents. The respondent had borrowed Rs.30,000/- from

the petitioner before the wedding to take her to

honeymoon by saying that he had no money to spend for

honeymoon. After marriage, petitioner and respondent

resided together.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that

respondent was insisting her to do household chores. He

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

refused to engage a maid servant and thereby forcing her

to do all household work. The respondent promised her to

bear the fees for her MBA course, but failed to pay the

same. Initially, both the petitioner and respondent resided

at Electronic city, Bengaluru. Thereafter, they shifted to

Jayanagar. It is further case of petitioner that the

respondent, his parents and sister-in-law were regularly

visiting their house. The respondent and his relatives

started demanding dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and when

she refused to pay the same, respondent and his family

members were harassing the petitioner. The respondent

used to abuse the petitioner in filthy language and beat

her. He used to go out of house in the evening and return

home late night drinking heavily. In that state he used to

have forcible sex with her in a disgraceful and unnatural

way, causing her severe mental agony and trauma. The

respondent is a man of suspicious nature. He always used

to check her mobile phone. On 29.10.2014, the petitioner

went to attend a wedding of her first cousin. She fell sick

and hence she sought permission of the respondent to

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

stay in her mother's house for three days, to take rest and

get back home on 03.11.2014. For this, the respondent

did not agree and started quarrelling with the petitioner

and abused her in filthy language over phone. On

02.11.2014, the respondent came near the house of the

petitioner's mother and started shouting loudly with

deliberate intention to insult them in the locality.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that on

03.11.2014, she went to her flat to collect her testimonials

passport, laptop etc. But respondent started avoiding her

and locked the said flat with new lock so that the

petitioner could not enter the said house; And even told

the security person not to allow the petitioner to enter the

flat. When the petitioner made a call to him, he did not

receive the same. The petitioner along with her parents

tried to meet the respondent and sort out the dispute

amicably. On 07.02.2015, the respondent through his

sister-in-law by name Smt.Niharika conveyed message to

the petitioner that she could come on 08.02.2015 around

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

2.00 p.m., to matrimonial home to collect her documents.

Accordingly, on 08.02.2015, she went to matrimonial

house. The respondent along with family members and

advocate were present in the house. They had discussion

with her but dispute was not sorted out.

7. The respondent issued legal notice to her

making false allegations. She replied to the said notice.

The respondent failed to return the testimonies and other

important documents of the petitioner. Respondent

shifted to Mumbai. The petitioner requested respondent

and his parents to take her to Mumbai to lead marital life

with the respondent. The respondent refused to take her

to his house. Petitioner has lodged complaint to the police

stating harassment as well as cruel treatment of

respondent and members of his family for illegal demand

of dowry and forcing her to consent for dissolution of

marriage so that respondent can marry for second time.

On the basis of said complaint, Tilaknagar police registered

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

FIR for the offence punishable under Section 498A read

with Section 34 of IPC.

8. The respondent is MBA graduate and working in

M/s General Mills, Mumbai and earning salary of

Rs.1,25,000/- per month. In spite of that he neglected to

maintain the petitioner. With these reasons, she prayed to

dissolve her marriage with respondent solemnized on

26.12.2012 at Woodlands Hotel, Bengaluru.

9. The respondent has contended that the

averments stated in the petition are false. The respondent

and his parents have not at all harassed or ill-treated her.

Just to force respondent and his family members to give

consent for divorce, she made all sort of allegations

against him and his family members. The respondent

tolerated the harassment and continued the marital

relationship. However, petitioner for one or the other

reason with an intention to harass respondent, filed false

complaint as well as issued false notices. There are no

valid grounds for granting decree of divorce. All the

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

grounds made out in the petition are false. With these

reasons, respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.

10. Both the parties went to trial. The petitioner

examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13

and respondent examined himself as DW1 and got marked

Exs.R1 to R5.

11. The learned trial judge after hearing both the

parties and appreciating the evidence available on record,

by impugned judgment allowed the petition and granted

decree of divorce of marriage solemnized between the

petitioner and respondent dated 26.12.2012. The same is

challenged by the respondent in the present appeal on the

grounds mentioned in the appeal memo.

12. We have heard the arguments.

13. The relationship between the parties and that

they are residing separately since October, 2014, is not in

dispute.

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

14. PW-1 in her examination-in-chief reiterated the

contents of the petition. In her cross-examination, she

has stated that respondent emotionally told her that he

would commit suicide, if she refused to give consent for

the marriage. She has also stated that her husband

restricted her entry into the flat. Her husband was

suspecting her whenever she speaks to her mother or

others. Even he slapped her. Because of these

harassment, she left matrimonial house on 26.10.2014.

In her cross-examination, she elaborated the facts and she

denied suggestions of respondent. Most of the facts

stated by the petitioner in her examination-in-chief were

not disputed in the cross-examination by the respondent.

15. The learned advocate for appellant would

submit that appellant had filed an application to recall PW1

to cross-examination and said application was rejected

and sufficient opportunity was not given to respondent to

put forth his case. The learned advocate for respondent

would submit that said application was filed at the

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

conclusion of trial with an intention to protract litigation

without valid reasons. Hence, the learned trial judge

rightly rejected the said application assigning valid

reasons. The learned judge had given sufficient

opportunity to respondent to prosecute his case.

16. The contentions of the learned advocate for

respondent is tenable.

17. The trial court records reveal that PW-1 was

present on three dates for cross-examination. Her cross-

examination was completed. Thereafter, evidence of

respondents was recorded. When the case was posted for

arguments, I.A.Nos.8 and 9 were filed. Considering the

same, the trial court passed detailed order dated

26.07.2018 and rejected the application. Even if she had

gone to Dubal or Canada on job, how does it affect the

merits of the case. Hence, rejection of said application

was proper.

18. In the appeal memo, appellant mentioned

several messages said to be sent by the respondent.

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

Cleverly, he has not mentioned as to what were the

messages sent by him to respondent for which she replied

in above fashion. From the dates mentioned in the appeal

memo, it appears that after they started living separately,

the said messages were exchanged. For the sake of

discussion, even if it is accepted that the said message

were sent by petitioner-wife, by reading the said

messages, one can infer that they were written out of

frustration, anguish or distress, might be due to the

behaviour of the appellant. They corroborate the

contentions of respondent herein and the degree of cruelty

with which he treated her. After she started residing

separately from appellant, he was sending irritating

messages and continued harassment. Therefore, she

must have sent such messages.

19. It is not in dispute that they were exchanging

notices between them through advocate, which were

placed at Exs.P-4 to Ex.P-7. The very same allegations

were made in the said letters also. It is also not in dispute

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

that petitioner had filed complaint against him in

Tilaknagar police station, it was registered in

Cr.No.390/2015 dated 07.10.2015. These materials also

corroborate the contention of the petitioner that

respondent was treating her cruelly. Both the side had

lost faith on each other.

20. The respondent in his evidence has stated

about defense taken by him. He has extracted SMS

messages sent by both of them on various dates. These

messages indicate that relationship between them was

strained. He has stated that on the basis of the complaint

given by the petitioner, criminal case was registered

against him and his mother in C.C.No.19890/2016,

pending in the court of II ACMM Court, Bengaluru.

21. In the cross-examination of DW1, he has stated

that both petitioner and respondent were working in a

team in TCS Company. He denied the suggestions that he

and his parents demanded for divorce from the petitioner

and when she did not agree for the same, they were

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

unhappy with her. He also admits that he did not file

petition for restitution of conjugal right after petitioner left

him. He was questioned by the petitioner as to "whether

he was ready to take back the petitioner if she intend to

join him"? He gave an evasive answer stating that "he had

apprehension because of false case was filed by the

petitioner and if the petitioner openly express her mind,

then he would consider." The answer given by respondent

indicates his intention. The appellant's opposes for grant

of divorce to petitioner and he is also not whole heartedly

ready to continue marital life with her. It is nothing but

his intention to continue harassment to petitioner through

process of the court. From the evidence on record, any

prudent man can infer that she was unable to continue

matrimonial relation due to harassment for dowry,

suspecting her character and other reasons assigned in

her evidence. It is not in dispute that both of them fell in

love before the marriage and both of them were working

in the same organisation. They knew each other and after

understanding each other they agreed to marry. It is also

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

not in dispute that both of them convinced their parents

for their marriage. In the cross-examination of PW-1,

respondent has not brought out any ground as to why she

was indifferent after their marriage. Absolutely, there are

no materials on record to show that without any reasons,

she was fighting with respondent or with false contentions

he is seeking divorce from him. Therefore, the contention

of the appellant that there was no justifiable reason to

grant divorce as contemplated under Section 13(1)(ia) of

the Hindu Marriage Act is not tenable.

22. The learned trial judge considered the pleadings

and evidence on record properly and rightly granted relief

under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. From the

evidence of both the parties, the matrimonial relationship

is admittedly irretrievably broken down. Even the

mediation meetings were failed. Under such

circumstances, learned trial Judge has rightly decreed the

petition. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the

said findings.

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

23. Admittedly, both the parties are earning their

own source of income. It is not in dispute that at present,

the petitioner is working abroad in a multinational

company. Considering the same, learned trial judge

rejected the permanent alimony. The respondent has not

filed any appeal against the same or it was not brought

out in the arguments of learned counsel for respondent

that she is entitled for permanent alimony.

24. The learned advocate for appellant relied on the

judgment laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case

of HITESH BHATNAGAR Vs. DEEPA BHATNAGAR1,

which reads as under:

D. Constitution of India - article.142 - Nature and scope of Supreme Court's power - Dissolution of marriage - Circumstances envisaged held, power under Art.142 is plenipotentiary-It is an extraordinary jurisdiction vested by the Constitution with implicit trust and faith and, therefore, extraordinary care and caution has to be observed while exercising this jurisdiction-Such extraordinary power can be used to dissolve marriage as having irretrievably broken down

(2011) 5 SCC 234

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40507-DB

only when it is impossible to save the marriage and all efforts made in that regard would, to the mind of the Court, be counterproductive- Even if chances are infinitesimal for marriage to survive, it is not for Supreme Court to use its power under Art.142 to dissolve the marriage as having broken down irretrievably.

25. The law laid down in above case is not

applicable to present case. In this case, divorce was not

granted by trial court on the ground of breakdown of

marriage irretrievably, but on the ground of cruelty.

26. For the above reasons, it is not a fit case to

interfere with the well reasoned order of the trial court.

Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: