[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Y.Muniratha vs N.Dharmaraj on 15 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53100-DB
MFA No. 8765 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 8765 OF 2019 (FC)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. Y.MUNIRATHA,
W/O. MR. N. DHARMARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT C/O. SRI. YELLAPPA,
SURANGAJAKKANAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANJUNATH K. S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. N.DHARMARAJ,
S/O. SRI. NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT No.379, 3RD SQUARE,
AUSTIN TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 047.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R. THEAN MOLI, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53100-DB
MFA No. 8765 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY
COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
07.11.2017, PASSED IN MC No.538/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION13(1) (ia) OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-respondent.
2. No one appears for the respondent-petitioner.
3. This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the
judgment and decree dated 07.11.2017 passed in M.C.
No.538/2014 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at
Bengaluru. By means of the aforesaid judgment and decree,
the petition filed by the respondent-petitioner under Section
13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 was allowed and a
decree of divorce was granted. Under the provision of Section
27 of the HM Act, the respondent-petitioner was directed to
HM Act
NC: 2025:KHC:53100-DB
HC-KAR
return the gold ornaments if any, almirah, cot and clothes of
the respondent within one month of the decree.
4. The case in the petition is that the marriage
between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on
08.02.2009 at R.K.R. Kalyana Mantapa, APC Circle, Jigani,
Anekal Taluk as per the Hindu rights and customs. After the
marriage both of them resided together in the house of
petitioner's parents at No.379, 3rd Square, Austin Town,
Bengaluru. The allegation is that right from the beginning, the
relationship between the two was never cordial as the
respondent never co-operated and used to behave indifferently
with him and with his family members. During her stay she
was never a responsible wife and never performed marital
duties towards the petitioner and was not taking care of the
petitioner by showing love and affection. She used to stay two
days in the matrimonial home and one week in her parents'
house and if the petitioner and his parents refused to send her
to her parents' house, she used to pick up quarrel with the
petitioner and his family members and used to lock herself in a
room and not eat, till she was dropped to her parents' house.
NC: 2025:KHC:53100-DB
HC-KAR
Later, she conceived and delivered a girl child on 22.12.2009.
Thereafter, she came to the petitioner's house reluctuntatly but
never used to take care of the child and not feed the child
properly. It was the mother of the petitioner who used to take
care of the child and cook the food. The respondent was always
in the neighbors house and gossiping with neighbors. When the
petitioner and his parents asked anything about the same, the
respondent picked up quarrel with him and made a big issue of
the same and used to pack all her clothes and go to her
parents' house leaving the child in the petitioner's house. It is
alleged that she used to search the cupboard of other family
members and always cash used to be missing at home. The
parents of the petitioner decided to make a separate house for
the petitioner and the respondent in Austin Town and after
making separate house, the respondent very often went to her
parents' house. Whenever she was in the house she never
cooked food for the petitioner or for the child though huge
quantity of provisions was purchased as per her wish. She did
not wake up early in the mornings and cook breakfast for the
petitioner and even at night, he had to sleep many days on
empty stomach. It is stated that because of the disturbance
NC: 2025:KHC:53100-DB
HC-KAR
caused by the respondent and her torture, the petitioner could
not concentrate on his work and as a result, he was thrown out
of the job many times. It was stated that on 12.01.2013, the
respondent had gone to her parents' house for Sankranti along
with her child and had not returned till the date of filing of the
petition. Thereafter, when the petitioner requested the
respondent to come back, she refused and her family members
humiliated the petitioner. In November 2013, the respondent
had lodged a false complaint against the petitioner in Anekal
and in the police station, she had said that she is not willing to
join the petitioner and she wants a divorce.
5. The respondent appeared through her counsel and
denied the allegations but admitted the marriage with the
petitioner and the birth of the child. She had stated that
Rs.10 lakhs had been paid by her parents towards marriage
expenses. For one year after the marriage, the petitioner used
to treat her with love and affection and the family atmosphere
was very good. After the death of the younger sister of the
petitioner, the behaviour of the petitioner and his family
members changed. The petitioner developed a disliking for the
NC: 2025:KHC:53100-DB
HC-KAR
respondent and the respondent was just 20 years old and the
petitioner had no guts to prevent his mother from such acts as
he is a puppet in the hands of his mother and used to dance to
her tunes. She was ill-treated and caused psychological trauma
as the petitioner is not in position to take independent
decisions. The petitioner used to hand over the entire salary to
his mother and did not meet her basic necessities. It was the
petitioner who used to pick up quarrel with the respondent on
flimsy grounds, cursing and abusing the respondent that she is
not fit to be his wife. The respondent was aged 18 years and
the petitioner was aged 34 years at the time of marriage and
the respondent had just completed her SSLC. It was stated that
the respondent is ready to join the petitioner and is not
precipitating the matter either before the Criminal Court or the
Family Court, which demonstrates her conduct that she is not
interested to cause harm either to the petitioner or his mother.
It was stated that all her jewelries and costly sarees and dress
materials are with the petitioner at his residence. Hence,
dismissal of the petition was sought.
NC: 2025:KHC:53100-DB
HC-KAR
6. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked 3 documents. The respondent was examined as RW.1
and no documents were marked by her.
7. The following points arose for consideration.
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that the
respondent committed cruelty on the
petitioner after solemnization of
marriage?
2. What order?"
8. The findings of the Court were as follows:
"Point No.1 : Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per order for the
followings:"
9. The Family Court noted that subsequent to
marriage, the petitioner made a separate house for the
petitioner and respondent and later it was vacated and he
stayed at his parents' house. The allegations made in the
petition were reiterated by the petitioner in his examination-in-
chief. During his cross-examination, the petitioner admitted the
suggestion of counsel for the respondent that at the time of
marriage, the respondent's father had given a gold chain,
bracelet and ring and some of the gold ornaments to the
respondent. He has stated that the ornaments given at the
NC: 2025:KHC:53100-DB
HC-KAR
time of marriage were already taken by the respondent while
going to her parents' house. It was denied by him that the
entire ornaments are still in the almirah of the respondent in
the petitioner's house. It was denied that for a period of 3
years, the petitioner and the respondent led a cordial life. It
was further denied that the petitioner neglected to maintain the
respondent and not bringing any household articles to lead life
and that the respondent is still ready to live with him but the
petitioner has no intention to get back the respondent to his
house. The Family Court observed that the respondent has not
produced any document before the Court to show that she had
lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the Anekal
police that the police had advised the petitioner to take the
respondent to his house. The respondent had not filed any
complaint against the petitioner to show that the petitioner has
not maintained her properly. It was noted that in the cross-
examination of RW.1, it was admitted that at the time of
marriage there was no dowry given to the petitioner and there
was no condition imposed while performing the marriage. It
was further admitted by RW.1 that after joining the petitioner,
both of them led a happy married life and the petitioner used to
NC: 2025:KHC:53100-DB
HC-KAR
drop her in her parents' house whenever she decided to go to
her parents' house. She further admitted that the petitioner
took her to temple after he returned from office. She also
admitted that the petitioner made separate accommodation and
he himself used to purchase the groceries and she was not
aware about the groceries shop near her house. She had
denied that the petitioner used to hand over his salary to her.
10. On perusing the above, the Family Court was of the
opinion that the petitioner had not committed any cruelty on
the respondent but it was the respondent who was always
picking up quarrel with him and going to her maternal home
and staying for long. It was noted that the respondent had said
that she is not interested in living with the petitioner.
11. The findings of the Family Court are based on the
statement of the parties that from the beginning of the
marriage the respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner and
within one year of the marriage she got separate house and
even during the stay in the separate house, the respondent was
always blaming the petitioner that he is hearing (obeying) the
words of his mother and picking up quarrel with her. The
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53100-DB
HC-KAR
suggestion made by the counsel for the petitioner was noted
that a panchayat was held and in spite of the same, the
respondent refused to join the petitioner that she had leveled
false allegations against mother-in-law and due to the loss of
life of the petitioner's sister, the respondent could have stayed
in their house and consoled them in that situation. Without
doing so, coming out of the house and demanding the
petitioner to give entire salary to her and always making
allegations against him, in the opinion of the Family Court,
showed the adamant attitude of the respondent throughout the
marital life with the petitioner. Accordingly, relying upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya
Ghosh2 and Narendra v. K. Meena3 , the petition was
decreed.
12. We have perused the original record. The learned
counsel for the appellant has placed before us the testimony of
the parties as well as the findings recorded by the learned
Principal Judge.
(2007) 4 SCC 511
(2016) 9 SCC 455
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53100-DB
HC-KAR
13. What we find striking from the record is that barely
after attaining majority, the respondent was married to the
petitioner who was at that time, aged 34 years. The so-called
proven conduct of the respondent wife has to be viewed in the
context of her age. The allegations that she was always
insisting to be taken to her parents' home would only be
attributed to the desires of the young adult who likes to be in
the comfort of her parents' home. That is not to say that, that
cannot be a ground for cruelty in a particular fact situation.
There may be instances that such conduct on part of the wife
cannot be condoned. The Family Court may be correct in
holding that after the death of the petitioner's sister, the
respondent should have stayed in the matrimonial house and
comforted the family. However, such an instance by itself
cannot be said to be cruelty which has continued through the
period of the marriage of the parties. Cruelty has to be proved
and demonstrated to be continuing so as to it being a cause for
grant of a decree of divorce.
14. As a matter of fact what is reflected from the
evidence is that the instance of so called cruelty are matters of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53100-DB
HC-KAR
normal wear and tear that can occur in a given fact situation.
In his cross-examination, the PW.1 has admitted that after 1
year he had brought his child to his house and that he had not
made any complaint to Anekal Police Station regarding the act
of the respondent in not allowing him to see the child. It is to
be noted that the allegation made in the petition with regard to
the wife committing theft of cash in the almirah has not been
proved. The learned counsel for the appellant is right in stating
that the finding returned by the Family Court that the wife used
to quarrel with her husband within one year and that she was
blaming the petitioner that he is hearing the words of his
mother are not reflections of cruelty on the petitioner. The fact
that the respondent had not filed any complaint against the
petitioner and that itself cannot be said to be a ground that the
respondent had not committed any cruelty against the
petitioner, which was considered by the Family Court, has
nothing turning on that, as far as cruelty is concerned. As a
matter of fact, the aforesaid act of not filing any complaint
against the petitioner by the respondent, itself goes to show
that she intended no harm to the petitioner.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53100-DB
HC-KAR
15. The judgments referred to by the Family Court, in
the facts and circumstances would not apply to the case at
hand.
16. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the
judgment and decree impugned in the present appeal and
allowed this appeal.
All pending IAs stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
