Karnataka High Court
Sri G. Hemantha Rao Ghore vs Smt. Praveena H Rao on 29 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
MFA No.5400/2015
C/W MFA No.4438/2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5400/2015 (FC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4438/2015 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI G HEMANTHA RAO GHORE
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
CONSTABLE NO.012050035
CISF UNIT, ASG
THIRUVANANTHAPURA, KERALA
NOW AT: CISF UNIT RGI AIRPORT
SHAMSHABAD POST,
HYDERABAD - 500 005 ...APPELLANT
(COMMON)
(BY SMT.SAROJINI MUTHANNA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally SMT. PRAVEENA H RAO
signed by AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
ROOPA R U D.NO.320-B, 11TH MAIN,
Location: High E-BLOCK, J P NAGAR, MYSURU-8.
Court of
Karnataka NOW R/AT: NO.140/F, 4TH MAIN
22ND CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURAM
MYSURU - 570 008 ...RESPONDENT
(COMMON)
(BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
M.F.A.NO.5400/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF
FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 10.04.2015 PASSED IN M.C.NO.197/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, MYSORE,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13 OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, READ WITH SECTION 7 OF FAMILY COURTS ACT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
MFA No.5400/2015
C/W MFA No.4438/2015
HC-KAR
M.F.A.NO.4438/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF
FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 10.04.2015 PASSED IN M.C.NO.499/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, MYSORE,
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.04.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL. J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)
These appeals arise out of the common judgment and
decree in M.C.No.499/2011 and M.C.No.197/2012 passed by
the Judge, Additional Family Court, Mysuru. By the impugned
judgment and decree, the Trial Court has dismissed
M.C.No.197/2012 filed by the appellant/husband for decree of
dissolution of marriage and allowed M.C.No.499/2011 filed by
respondent/wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 ('the Act' for short) for restitution of conjugal rights.
2. The appellant was the respondent in
M.C.No.499/2011 and petitioner in M.C.No.197/2012.
Respondent was the petitioner in M.C.No.499/2011 and
respondent in M.C.No.197/2012. For the purpose of
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth as husband
and wife i.e., their status in their matrimonial life.
3. The parties are Hindus and governed by Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage of the parties was
solemnized on 25.9.2006 at Chanakya Kalyana Mantapa, JP
Nagar, Mysuru. The couple were blessed with a daughter on
31.10.2007. Before marriage and even during the pendency of
the proceedings, the husband was serving as constable in CISF.
At the time of marriage he was working in Agartala. Thereafter
he was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.
4. Husband filed OP (HMA) No.587/2011 for divorce
against the wife before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram
alleging that wife has subjected him to cruelty and has willfully
deserted him. On transfer petition filed by the wife before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said case was transferred to Family
Court, Mysore and renumbered as M.C.No.197/2012. In the
meanwhile, wife filed M.C.No.499/2011 against the husband for
restitution of conjugal rights alleging that he has willfully
deserted her. She also contended in the petition that husband
and his family members have subjected her to cruelty.
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
5. On transfer, Family Court consolidated both the
petitions and recorded common evidence in M.C.No.499/2011.
Wife was examined as PW.1 and on her behalf Exs.P.1 to P.3
were marked. Husband was examined as RW.1. On his behalf,
Exs.R.1 to R17 were marked.
6. The Trial Court on hearing the parties by the
impugned judgment, allowed the wife's petition for restitution
of conjugal rights and dismissed husband's petition for divorce
holding that he has failed to prove the alleged cruelty whereas
wife has proved her allegation that he has willfully deserted
her.
7. Husband has questioned the decree in
M.C.No.197/2012 in MFA No.5400/2015 and decree in
M.C.No.499/2011 in MFA No.4438/2015. Though the appeals
were filed in 2015, the records show that the appellant had not
cleared the office objections raised by the Scrutiny branch up to
15.12.2020. The coordinate bench of this Court on 15.12.2020
though condoned the delay in filing the appeals, disposed of the
appeals reserving liberty to the husband to file petition under
section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act and if he is unsuccessful in the said
petition, liberty was reserved to revive these appeals. Para 5 of
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
the said judgment which is relevant for the purpose of this case
reads as follows:
"5. Though these appeals were filed on 17.07.2015
and 12.06.2015, the office objections have not been
removed till date. In the circumstances, we dispose
of these appeals by reserving liberty to the
appellant-husband to file a petition under Section
13(1A) & (ii) of the Act, seeking dissolution of
marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that
there has been no restitution of conjugal rights of the
parties for a period of one year. In the event the
appellant - husband is unsuccessful in the said
petition, liberty is reserved to the appellant to revive
these appeals. Ordered accordingly."
8. Pursuant to the said order, the husband filed
M.C.No.378/2021 under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act before the
Family Court, Mysore. Family Court by judgment dated
27.01.2023 dismissed M.C.No.378/2021. Thereafter on the
application of husband by order dated 27.9.2024 these appeals
were revived. Before this Court, during the course of hearing,
the appellant husband has filed IA No.1/2025 to produce the
following documents in evidence:
i) Copy of order passed in C C No.14/2012 dt.27.11.2024
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
ii) Copy of complaint dated 23.12.2019 made by the
wife to higher authorities against husband in Hindi and English
translation of the same.
iii) Bill paid for translation of Hindi letter.
iv) Copy of appellant's statement given during
departmental preliminary enquiry.
Submissions of Smt Sarojini Muthanna, learned Counsel
for appellant/husband:
9. (a) The evidence on record clearly shows that the
wife herself was reluctant to join husband to lead the
matrimonial life. She was insisting the husband to resign his
job and join her father in Mysuru who was a contractor and
work in the business of her father. The evidence on record
further shows that even after marriage, she stayed back with
her parents for 2 years and only on the intervention of the
elders, she joined the husband in Agartala. She was refusing to
do household work and discharge conjugal duties. She used to
quarrel in the presence of neighbors and she made false
complaints to his higher officers making false allegation that he
had an affair with his sister-in-law. On enquiry, the said
complaint was closed finding that the complaint is false. She
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
used to cry all the time asking the husband to take her to her
parents' place and she told her husband that she married him
due to the pressure of her parents. Despite the husband setting
up a rented house in Thiruvananthapuram on his transfer to
Thiruvananthapuram, initially she refused to join, later she
joined and harassed the husband denying to discharge her
marital obligations. She used to threaten the husband of
committing suicide and killing the child. The husband was
forced to drop her back at her parental house in March 2010
under the fear that she may commit some untoward act of
killing herself or the child.
(b) The Trial Court without proper appreciation of the
evidence has allowed the petition of the wife and dismissed the
petition of husband in M.C.No.197/2012. On the complaint
filed by the wife against the appellant-husband, his elder
brother, sister-in-law and father alleging dowry harassment,
case was registered. In that, the proceedings against elder
brother and sister-in-law were quashed and case against father
was abated. On trial the appellant was acquitted. The wife
kept on making complaints to the higher authorities of the
appellant in which his explanation was sought. They are the
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
subsequent events. Therefore, those documents are produced.
Those documents are relevant for the adjudication of this
matter. Hence, IA No.1/2025 shall be allowed.
10. In support of her submissions, she relies on the
following judgments:
i) Martin Sujay vs. Smt.Amulyabrinda1
ii) Joydeep Majumdar vs. Bharti Jaiswal
Majumdar2
iii) Mangayakarasi vs. M.Yuvaraj3
Submissions of Smt.Sona Vakkund, learned counsel for
the respondent:
11. Admissions of the appellant-husband in his cross
examination themselves show that he himself was guilty of
willful desertion. Absolutely there was no evidence to show
that the wife in any manner subjected him to cruelty. Except
for self serving evidence of the husband, there was not even
scant evidence to establish the alleged cruelty. When wife and
her parents approached the parents of the appellant, they
themselves created ruckus and to create evidence the appellant
filed complaint before Saraswathipuram Police on which no
ILR 2021 KAR 4324
AIR 2021 SC 1165
(2020)3 SCC 786
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
action was taken. The Trial Court on judicious appreciation of
the evidence has rightly dismissed the husband's petition for
divorce and allowed the wife's petition for restitution of
conjugal rights. The acquittal was granted by extending the
benefit of doubt and not an honourable acquittal, that does not
amount to cruelty. Since the husband did not take care of his
wife and daughter, she was forced to request the higher
authorities of the husband, to counsel him to discharge his
conjugal duties and that cannot be called as cruelty. Husband
has not cared for his wife and daughter and is not even paying
maintenance to them. Delay in production of the documents is
not explained. Hence, both the appeals and IA are liable to be
dismissed.
12. On hearing the submissions of both counsel and on
examination of the material on record, the points that arise for
consideration are:
i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that
the appellant has failed to prove that he was subjected
to cruelty by respondent-wife ?
ii) Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding
that the appellant-husband is guilty of willful desertion ?
iii) Whether IA No.1/2025 for adducing additional
evidence deserves to be allowed ?
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
ANALYSIS
Reg. Point Nos.1 to 3:
13. As point Nos.1 to 3 overlap each other, they are
taken up together for consideration. As already noted wife filed
MC No.499/2011 for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that
the husband has willfully deserted her. Though the petition of
the husband for divorce is simply under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, without stating the specific provision i.e., Section
13(ia) and (ib) etc., he has alleged in the petition that wife did
not join him in the matrimonial home at Agartala soon after the
marriage in the guise of her B.com studies. Thereafter she did
not join him in the pretext of her pregnancy and delivery. She
insisted that he should resign his job and reside with her
parents. That clearly shows that he sought divorce on the
ground of desertion also. Further in para 25 of the petition in
M.C.No.197/2012, he has clearly pleaded that the wife is guilty
of cruelty and desertion.
14. Admittedly, marriage of the appellant and the
respondent was solemnized on 25.09.2006 at Mysore and the
parties are Hindus governed by Hindu Marriage Act. It is also
not disputed that even before the marriage appellant was
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
serving in CISF and at the time of marriage he was posted in
Agartala. It is not disputed that the couple was blessed with a
daughter on 31.10.2007.
15. Wife filed M.C.No.499/2011 before the Trial Court
for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that her husband has
deserted her without any reasonable cause. Admittedly before
she filing MC No.499/2011, husband filed OP HMA No.587/2011
on 18.04.2011 before Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram
against the wife seeking decree for dissolution of marriage on
the ground that the wife subjected him to cruelty and
desertion. Wife filed transfer petition No.1187/2011 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking transfer of OP HMA
No.587/2011 to Family Court, Mysore. Hon'ble Supreme Court
by the order dated 09.04.2012 allowed the petition and
transferred divorce petition to Family Court, Mysore with
direction to dispose of the matter within nine months from the
date of framing of the issues. On such transfer the said case
was renumbered as MC No.197/2012.
16. Wife denied the husband's allegation of cruelty
whereas husband contended that wife herself did not lead the
conjugal life and despite his request, stayed back with her
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
parents in the guise of completion of her degree education,
pregnancy, delivery etc. He further contended that in addition
to that she subjected him and his family members to cruelty by
filing false dowry harassment case and threatening him of
suicide on killing the child. Therefore, it was not possible for
him to continue the marital life. Under the circumstances, if
the husband's allegation of cruelty is held proved the wife's
allegation of willful desertion does not sustain. Therefore, this
Court has to examine whether the allegations of cruelty were
proved.
17. The cruelty alleged by the husband were as follows;
i) She used to make false complaints to his higher
Officers with false allegations;
ii) As a counter blast to the divorce petition, the wife
implicated him and his family members in a false dowry
harassment case;
iii) After service of notice of divorce petition, the wife,
her father and other relatives went to his parents' house on
25.08.2010 at 9.00 p.m., abused them in foul language and
intimidated them forcing him to seek Police protection;
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
iv) That wife was refusing to cook, do household work
and perform conjugal duties;
v) She was a nagging woman and used to quarrel
loudly in the presence of neighbours;
vi) She used to cry all the time in matrimonial home
asking him to take her back to her parents' house;
vii) During her stay with him in Thiruvananthapuram
she was threatening him that after killing the child, she will
commit suicide.
18. The Trial Court has dismissed the petition for
divorce and allowed the wife's petition for restitution on the
following grounds:
i) The allegations of husband regarding desertion
were not proved. Wife lead marital life with her husband in
Agartala and Thiruvananthapuram and was all along ready to
join her husband.
ii) The allegations of cruelty are vague and were not
proved. Specific provision of Section 13 of the Act is not stated
in the petition
iii) The wife, her parents and relatives made galata
against the parents and brother of the husband to insist them
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
to take the wife back to the matrimonial home. That does not
amount to cruelty.
19. So far as not quoting specific provision of Section
13 of the Act, it is settled position of law that quoting of a
wrong provision in the pleadings or the application is not fatal
and to ascertain the foundation for the reliefs sought, the
Courts have to look into the substance of the pleadings or
applications. The reading of the petition in MC No.197/2012
shows that the husband alleged that the wife was reluctant to
join him to lead matrimonial life and unwilling for conjugal
cohabitation. He also pleaded the acts of cruelty which are
already referred above. Further in para 25 of the petition he
has stated as follows:
"So also the respondent's intentional refusal to have
normal sexual intercourse with him amounts to
mental as well as social cruelty and much less the
respondent is guilty of desertion and cruelty."
20. In the light of such clear and unambiguous recital in
the aforesaid paragraph coupled with the other statements
made in the petition, the finding of the Trial Court in para 86 of
the impugned judgment that the husband is not specific and
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
certain on what ground he is seeking decree of divorce, is
erroneous and unsustainable.
21. The husband alleged that wife was guilty of
desertion and cruelty, whereas the wife alleged that husband
was not ready to take her to his fold and he was guilty of
desertion and cruelty. Desertion connotes willful withdrawal of
a spouse from the company of other spouse without
reasonable cause or against the wish of such party and
includes willful neglect on the part of such spouse. In this case,
the husband apart from alleging desertion contended that wife
subjected him to cruelty which has created a reasonable
apprehension to him that continuing to stay with her is not
safe. Cruelty, if established would be a reasonable cause for a
spouse to withdraw from the company of the other spouse.
Therefore, it would be appropriate to first consider the
allegation of the husband regarding cruelty.
22. The husband contended that wife finding his income
not befitting her father's financial status, wanted him to give up
his job and join her father's business, therefore, she was
reluctant to join him. He further alleged that whenever she
joined him in Agartala and Kerala she was nagging and
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
threatened him of killing the child and committing suicide and
implicating him in false case. He also alleged that wife
implicated him and his family members in false criminal case
and filed false complaints against him to higher officers making
him to face hard time at his place of work.
23. Before this Court, he filed IA No.1/2025 to produce
the copy of the judgment dated 27.11.2024 in C.C.No.14/2012
passed by the V Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysore and
copy of the complaint dated 23.12.2019 addressed by the wife
to Inspector General of CISF, New Delhi and the copy of the
translation of the same, as additional evidence. In the counter
filed to the said application, the wife did not dispute those
documents. But it is only contended that those documents were
neither produced in M.C.No.378/2021 nor such contention was
taken in the said petition, therefore, the production cannot be
allowed at this stage.
24. Admittedly, MC No.378/2021 was disposed of on
27.01.2023. The judgment of acquittal in CC No.14/2012 was
passed on 27.11.2024. Thus the said document was not
available during the pendency of MC No.378/2021. Admittedly
the scope of MC No.378/2021 was very limited as this Court by
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
order dated 15.12.2020 had granted liberty to the husband to
file petition under Section 13(1A) (ii) of the Act i.e., decree for
dissolution of marriage on the ground that there was no
restitution of conjugal rights between the parties even after
period of one year or more after the passing of the decree for
restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, there was no scope
for the husband again to allege cruelty by the wife by filing
false complaints to his higher officers or for production of the
said documents. Moreover in para 9 of her counter to IA
No.1/2025 the wife admits that she had filed complaint, but not
with a malafide intention, but to bring pressure on her husband
to take her and their daughter to his fold. In para 11 of the
counter she admits that she has not challenged the said
judgment of acquittal. Admittedly the State also has not filed
appeal against the said judgment. Therefore, the said judgment
has attained finality.
25. In para 12 of her counter to IA No.1/2025 wife
admitted having written the complaint dated 23.12.2019
addressed to the higher officers of the husband, but contends
that such complaint was drafted by her local counsel with an
intention to send her back to the matrimonial home. Thus she
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
admits both the documents. The facts admitted need not be
proved. The judgment between the parties to the lis is
relevant, admissible and the Court can take judicial notice of
the same. (Section 33/57, 58 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872/Section 27/52 and 53 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyama,
2023). The documents sought to be produced have some
bearing on the issue. Therefore IA No.1/2025 deserves to be
allowed.
26. Admittedly husband got issued Ex.R2/notice dated
15.03.2011 prior to the institution of the divorce petition
making allegations of cruelty and calling upon her to agree for
divorce. The service of the said notice is not disputed. She did
not issue any reply to the said notice. Admittedly from the
date of marriage i.e., 25.09.2006 till the service of notice of
divorce petition filed by the husband, the wife had not made
any allegation of dowry harassment. OP(HMA) No.587/2011
was filed on 18.04.2011 (renumbered as MC No.197/2012). As
per the records, notice of the said petition was served on her
on 06.05.2011. Soon thereafter on 04.06.2011 she filed dowry
harassment complaint against her husband, his father, elder
brother and the wife of the said elder brother. She had alleged
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
that at the instigation of her husband's brother and sister-in-
law, he harassed her and suspected her character etc. She had
also alleged that her brother in law and his wife also harassed
her demanding dowry etc. The said case was registered in
Crime No.72/2011 of Mahila Police Station, Mysore and the said
Police filed charge sheet against all of them for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The V
Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysore took cognizance of the
offences against all of them and registered the same in CC
No.14/2012.
27. Elder brother and sister in law of the husband filed
Crl.P.No.6493/2016 before this Court seeking quashing of
proceedings in CC No.14/2012 against them alleging that said
proceedings are the abuse of the process of the Court. Wife
was respondent No.2 in the said petition. Admittedly this Court
on hearing both the parties by judgment dated 25.09.2019
allowed the said petition and quashed those proceedings
against the said petitioners. In the current appeals while
seeking revival of the proceedings, the counsel for the husband
has produced the copy of judgment in M.C.No.378/2021 which
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
shows that in the said case, the copy of the judgment in
Crl.P.No.6493/2016 was marked at Ex.P14. The said
judgment in Crl.P.No.6493/2016 is placed by the office in the
records of this case. In that judgment, learned Single Judge
observed that elder brother and sister in law of the husband
had not resided with the complainant, the complaint against
them was baseless and malicious.
28. Reading of para 6 of the judgment in CC
No.14/2012 shows that initially all the accused were summoned
and they were released on bail. Accused No.4/the father-in-law
while filing the charge sheet was aged 68 years. He died
pending those proceedings, therefore the case against him was
abated. As proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3 were
quashed, the trial proceeded only against the husband. Though
the Magistrate made a stray statement in para 35 of the
judgment that benefit of doubt goes to the accused, thorough
reading of the said judgment shows that the learned Magistrate
on detailed appreciation of the evidence, disbelieving the
allegations of cruelty, demand and acceptance of dowry,
granted honourable acquittal to the husband. Admittedly, the
said judgment has attained finality.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
29. Wife's own statement in her counter to IA
No.1/2025 makes it clear that to pressurize the husband she
filed such complaint, not only against her husband but against
other family members. Apparently that is to thwart the
proceedings in divorce petition. Unfortunately the husband,
who was in central armed police service at far off place, was
made to face trial for 12 years in Mysore Court. Certainly facing
such criminal trial and civil cases, while struggling in his career
creates untold misery to a person. It is also material to note
that even before the wife filing such complaint of dowry
harassment, the husband filed complaint/Ex.R7 to the
Commissioner of Police, Ex.R9 to Mahila Police, Mysore and
Ex.R12 Saraswathipuram police alleging that on 25.08.2010 at
9.00 p.m. his wife, her father and her relatives went to his
parents' house, abused them in foul language in the
background of matrimonial discord and criminally intimidated
them. The wife admits the said incident. Though no FIR was
registered on that basis, she contends such incident took place
to insist the husband's family members for accepting her in the
matrimonial home. Thereby the said incident is admitted.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
30. Learned counsel for the wife relied on the judgment
in Mangayakarasi's case referred to supra to contend that the
acquittal in criminal case is not a ground to grant divorce.
Reading of para 13 of the said judgment shows that in that
case Hon'ble Supreme Court found error in framing substantial
question of law with regard to the acquittal in criminal case.
However, in para 14 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
"14. It cannot be in doubt that in an appropriate
case the unsubstantiated allegation of dowry
demand or such other allegation has been made and
the husband and his family members are exposed to
criminal litigation and ultimately if it is found that
such allegation is unwarranted and without basis
and if that act of the wife itself forms the basis for the
husband to allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted
on him, certainly, in such circumstance if a petition for
dissolution of marriage is filed on that ground and
evidence is tendered before the original court to allege
mental cruelty it could well be appreciated for the
purpose of dissolving the marriage on that ground.
However, in the present facts as already indicated, the
situation is not so. Though a criminal complaint had been
lodged by the wife and husband has been acquitted in the
said proceedings the basis on which the husband had
approached the Trial Court is not of alleging mental
cruelty in that regard but with regard to her intemperate
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
behaviour regarding which both the courts below on
appreciation of the evidence had arrived at the conclusion
that the same was not proved. In that background, if the
judgment of the High Court is taken into consideration,
we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified
in its conclusion."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. This being the first appeal is continuation of original
proceedings, in the evidence led by the husband before the
Court, he had made allegations of malicious implication in the
criminal case amounting to cruelty. The acquittal judgment is
passed pending these appeals. Under the facts and
circumstances of the present case the judgment in
Mangayakarasi's case does not advance the case of the wife
whereas the same advances the case of the husband to grant
decree of divorce. Further, even before the trial Court the
husband alleged that the wife was making false complaints
against him to his higher officers which amounted to cruelty to
him. The wife admits for having filed complaint before the
higher officers. One of such complaints dated 23.12.2019 is
produced with IA No.1/2025. She has admitted the said
document. In that she has alleged that her husband has extra-
marital affair with his sister in law, therefore he wants divorce.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
Such allegations are made even after this Court in its judgment
dated 25.09.2019 in Crl.P.No.6493/2016 held that she has
made malicious allegations against her brother in law and his
wife. In para 12 of counter to IA No.1/2025 she tried to
overcome the consequence of the said complaint alleging that
the same was drafted by her counsel with an intention to send
her back to her matrimonial home. There is nothing in the said
complaint to show that an advocate has drafted the same.
Even otherwise, admittedly, she is a graduate and she has
subscribed her signature on the said complaint. Thus she
cannot disown her responsibility by blaming a counsel, that too
behind his back.
32. In similar circumstances, in paragraphs 13 and 14
of the judgment in Joydeep Majumdar's case referred to
supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
13. Proceeding with the above understanding, the question
which requires to be answered here is whether the conduct of the
respondent would fall within the realm of mental cruelty. Here the
allegations are levelled by a highly educated spouse and
they do have the propensity to irreparably damage the
character and reputation of the appellant. When the
reputation of the spouse is sullied amongst his colleagues,
his superiors and the society at large, it would be difficult
to expect condonation of such conduct by the affected
party.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
14. The explanation of the wife that she made those
complaints in order to protect the matrimonial ties would
not in our view, justify the persistent effort made by her to
undermine the dignity and reputation of the appellant. In
circumstances like this, the wronged party cannot be
expected to continue with the matrimonial relationship and
there is enough justification for him to seek separation."
(Emphasis supplied)
The analysis of the aforesaid evidence with reference to the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court go to show that by
falsely implicating the husband and his family members alleging
dowry harassment and making complaints to the higher officers
of the husband assassinating his character and his sister-in-
law's, putting his career to risk, wife has subjected him to
cruelty. In such situation any person of ordinary prudence gets
an apprehension whether it would be safe to live with such
person as there is again chance of dragging him and his family
members in some cases.
33. So far as the allegations of husband subjecting her
to abuse etc or the wife quarrelling in the house in the presence
of neighbours etc, both parties except their self serving
evidence did not examine any other witnesses. Though the
wife claimed that husband was not treating her properly during
her stay in Agartala and Thiruvananthapuram, she herself
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
admitted the photographs in Ex.R1 which show that he had
taken her and the child for outing. But her grievance is that he
was taking her only to the temples. The photos in Ex.R1 show
that wife and child were taken to zoo, sea sh0ore, water palace
etc. The husband contended that she was not willing to go to
Thiruvananthapuram and on insistence, her parents brought
and dropped her in Thiruvananthapuram. She has admitted
the fact of her parents dropping her in Thiruvananthapuram.
She did not file any petition for execution of decree for
restitution of conjugal rights.
34. Under the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be
said that there was willful desertion on the part of the husband
without any reasonable cause and cruelty was not established.
In the light of the above said facts and circumstances, IA
No.1/2025 and appeals deserve to be allowed. Hence the
following:
ORDER
i) IA No.1/2025, MFA No.5400/2015 and
MFA No.4438/2015 are hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and decree in MC
No.499/2011 and 197/2012 are hereby set aside.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18409-DB
HC-KAR
iii) The petition in MC No.499/2011 for restitution of
conjugal rights is hereby dismissed.
iv) The petition in MC No.197/2012 for dissolution of
marriage is hereby allowed.
v) The marriage of the petitioner and respondent
solemnized on 25.09.2006 at Chanakya Kalyan
Mantapa at Mysore is hereby dissolved.
vi) Costs made easy. Draw decree accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
AKC
