Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Pavithra vs Mr. Wilson Rajan on 27 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49201-DB
MFA No. 8779 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 8779 OF 2018 (IDA)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. PAVITHRA,
WIFE OF WILSON RAJAN,
D/O ARUNACHAM,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF No.50,
SOUPARNIKA EPF ENCLAVE,
HMT AUDITORUM, JALAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 013.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K. P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VALLI AND:
MARIMUTHU
Location: HIGH 1. MR. WILSON RAJAN,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SON OF RAJA J.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDENT AT No.98, 3RD CROSS,
SANJAY NAGAR, MARATHAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 037.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. MARYKALA A., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 55 OF INDIAN
DIVORCE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
08/03/2018, PASSED IN M.C. No.4725/2014, ON THE FILE OF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49201-DB
MFA No. 8779 of 2018
HC-KAR
THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
U/SECTION 10(ix), (x) OF THE DIVORCE ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 'DISMISSAL', 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 learned counsel for the appellant. The parties may
be referred to as per their ranks in the Family Court for sake of
convenience.
2. This appeal has been filed seeking to challenge an
order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the IV Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C. No.4725/2014, whereby
the petition filed by the petitioner-respondent herein under
Section 10(1)(ix), (x) of the Divorce Act, 18691 has been
allowed and a decree of divorce granted. The parties were
married on 14.05.2008 in Logos Assembly God of Church at
Bengaluru as per Christian rites and customs prevailing in their
Act of 1869
NC: 2025:KHC:49201-DB
HC-KAR
community. From their wedlock, a male child was born, who
was aged five years at the time of filing of the petition. The
respondent-appellant herein was suspicious in character and
doubted the petitioner all the time. The respondent was more
interested in staying at her parents' house than staying in the
matrimonial house. She left the matrimonial home on
24.11.2011 stating that her parents were sick. Thereafter, she
did not return to the matrimonial home. Despite efforts being
made, the respondent did not return to her matrimonial home.
Thereafter, the petition for divorce was filed.
3. A statement of objections was filed by the
respondent in which the allegations made against her were
denied. It was alleged that the petition was filed with a mala
fide intention to marry another lady with whom the petitioner is
having an illicit affair. Allegations of the petitioner being
addicted to alcohol and neglecting to maintain the respondent
and her minor son were made. Allegation was further made
that she and her son were driven out of the matrimonial home
by the petitioner. In the course of evidence, the petitioner
examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 6 documents being
NC: 2025:KHC:49201-DB
HC-KAR
Exs.P1 to P6. The respondent examined herself as RW.1 and
got marked one document as Ex.R1.
4. The following points were stated to have arisen for
consideration.
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that the
respondent deserted him for a continuous
period of 2 years or more, immediately
preceding the presentation of this petition?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that the
respondent treated him with cruelty?
3. What order?"
5. The findings of the Court were as follows:
" 1. In the Affirmative.
2. In the Affirmative.
3. As per the final order"
6. The petition was filed in the Court of the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bangaluru on 10.11.2014. The Family
Court noted that the parties were residing separately since
24.11.2011 and the minor child was residing with the
respondent-mother. It was noted that the respondent did not
appear for her cross-examination and thereby, the evidence led
NC: 2025:KHC:49201-DB
HC-KAR
by her was expunged by an order of 09.01.2018. It emanated
from the cross-examination of PW.1 that the respondent
suspected his fidelity and that the husband was having illicit
relationship with one girl, who was named Bindu. It was noted
that the respondent had not placed any material before the
Court to prove that the petitioner was having illicit relationship
with another girl. Just because a suggestion was posed by the
respondent during the course of cross-examination of PW.1,
that he was having illicit intimacy with another lady, was not
found sufficient to believe her specific contention. It was noted
that the petitioner had specifically referred to an incident that
occurred on 22.11.2011. After the birth of the child, the
respondent was demanding from him to set up a separate
house. When he refused to set up a separate house, owing to
his responsibility to maintain his aged father, she consumed
poison. As a result of which, she was admitted to a hospital at
Bengaluru on 20.11.2011. She was discharged on 22.11.2011.
It was held that the respondent was pressurizing him to set up
a separate house and the nature of her suicidal tendency did
constitute mental cruelty to the husband. The incident that
occurred on 20.11.2011 was not disputed by the respondent.
NC: 2025:KHC:49201-DB
HC-KAR
The trial Court noted that during the course of cross-
examination of PW.1, a specific stand was taken by the wife
that when the petitioner neglected to maintain her by providing
basic needs, she was forced to consume poison. The Court
observed that she could have approached the concerned under
the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 20052 or should have sought maintenance or even
could have complained to the elders of the family, which was
not done. She however made an attempt to take away her life.
This was held to be cruelty towards the petitioner. It was
further noted that the petitioner had responsibility of taking
care of his aged father in the absence of any others to take
care of his father. In such a situation, the demand made by the
respondent to set up a separate house also constituted mental
cruelty towards the petitioner. After considering a judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Narendra v. K. Meena
(Civil Appeal No.3253/2008), the Family Court held that the
conduct of the respondent-appellant herein amounted to
cruelty. The admitted fact being that the parties to the petition
were residing separately since 24.11.2011, which was two days
PWDV Act, 2005
NC: 2025:KHC:49201-DB
HC-KAR
after her discharge from the hospital where she was
hospitalised on 20.11.2011 for having consumed poison in her
attempt to commit suicide, the burden was on the respondent
to show that she had not withdrawn her company from the
petitioner's. The conduct of the respondent leaving the
matrimonial home by withdrawing her company from the
petitioner showed that she intended to put a permanent end to
cohabitation with the petitioner. Therefore, the Court was of
the opinion that the respondent had left the company of the
petitioner continuously for a period of more than two years
prior to presentation of the petition, which is without any
justifiable excuse.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued
that on several occasions, the respondent was present in Court
for her cross-examination but her testimony was not recorded
and therefore, for this reason alone the order of the Family
Court deserves to be set aside.
8. We have perused the order sheet. Prior to the order
of 04.04.2017, in which it was recorded that sufficient
opportunity had been given to the respondent to subject herself
NC: 2025:KHC:49201-DB
HC-KAR
for cross-examination but no representation was made from the
side of the respondent. Hence, the RW.1 was discharged and
the respondent's side evidence was taken as 'nil'. Prior to that,
the order sheet itself reflects that repeated time was granted to
the RW.1 for cross-examination after the PW.1 was cross-
examined in full on 29.04.2016. Even thereafter, an application
was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure,
19083 and the case was being listed for cross-examination of
the RW.1 by orders of 16.11.2017, 08.12.2017 and
09.01.2018. On 07.02.2018, though both parties were initially
present and the arguments of the petitioner were heard, the
case was kept aside and was called again at 03.25 p.m. at
which time the respondent was absent and there was no
representation on her behalf. For arguments of respondent,
17.02.2018 was fixed. On 17.02.2018, the respondent did not
appear and therefore, the case was posted for judgment on
08.03.2018.
9. In view of the aforesaid details mentioned in the
order sheet of the Family Court, we find that the respondent-
CPC
NC: 2025:KHC:49201-DB
HC-KAR
appellant herein had been afforded adequate opportunity to
submit herself for cross-examination, which she did not avail.
We find from the record that the Family Court has considered
meticulously the evidence available including the examination
and the cross-examination of PW.1. The evidence on record
supports the claim of the petitioner for divorce on the ground of
desertion and cruelty. There is no merit in the appeal and it is
therefore, dismissed.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
