( 1 ) THIS appeal by the wife is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10-3-1982 passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court. Bangalore City, in M. C. No. 20 of 1980, on his file, decreeing the petition of the husband for judicial separation under S. 10 of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

( 2 ) PETITIONER/husband instituted a petition for divorce under S. 13 (i) (1a) (iii) of the Act. Petitioner/husband averred in the petition that he was married to respondent according to 'vedic' rites on 28-10-1973 in Bangalore City and the consummation of the marriage took place in December 1973 in the house of the respondent in rajajinagar. Petitioner/husband had already taken a house in 3rd Block, rajajinagar, and after consummation of marriage, he brought his wife to his house and stayed with her. The marital life went on well only for a couple of months, according to the petitioner/husband, and, thereafter, his wife started behaving rudely towards him. She was exhibiting erratic behaviour and rude temper towards the petitioner / husband. Petitioner/husband patiently endured all that with the fund hope that she would change her ways ard improve. But she did not. Petitioner/husband, thereafter, avers that his wife (respondent) was consuming different types of pills and tablets, including 'sequil' tablets. On enquiry he learnt that she was for some time in the Mental hospital. He wanted to get her treated. But she refused. Thereafter, in para 6 of the petition, petitioner/husband avers several incidents that took place to illustrate the rude and erratic behaviour of his wife. They are from para 6 (a) to (w ). On those allegations, on the ground of cruelty, the petitioner / husband sought for divorce. He also based his claim on the ground that his wife had been incurably of unsound mind and she suffered from mental disorder of such a kind and such an extent that the petitioner/husband could not be expected to live with the respondent.

( 3 ) THE petition was resisted by the wife by filing her statement of objections. She denied all the averments made in the petition. According to her, it is her husband and the mother-in-law who teased her and tortured her.

( 4 ) THE learned City Civil Court judge raised the following points for his consideration as arising from the pleadings : (1) Whether the petitioner has established the allegation that he was treated with cruelty by the respondent ? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief ? (3) What order ?

( 5 ) IT is obvious that since there was no specific pleading as such on the ground of insanity, the learned city Civil Court Judge did not raise a specific point on that ground and it was obviously not pressed before him also.

( 6 ) DURING hearing, petitioner / husband examined himself as PW 1 and he examined two other witnesses, viz. , PW 2 Shivaswamy and PW 3 rajashekhar. He got marked exhibits p-1 to P-7. As against that, the wife examined herself as RW 1 and closed her case and no exhibits were marked on her behalf.

( 7 ) THE learned City Civil Court judge, appreciating the evidence on record, held under Point No. 1, thus: 'partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. ' under Point No. 2, he held in the negative. But the further held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief of judicial separation and in that view, he gave a decree for judicial separation in favour of the husband. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the wife has instituted the above appeal before this Court.

( 8 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/wife strenuously urged before us that the learned city Civil Court Judge was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the evidence on record was sufficient to hold that the wife treated the petitioner / husband with cruelty. He further pointed out that if there could be no finding of cruelty for the purpose of divorce, there could not be a finding of cruelty with regard to judicial sep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document