Back
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNATH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
Dr. Smitha
Versus
Sathyajith
M.F.A. No.7444 of 2008
Decided on : 17-09-2009
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - Section 13 :[K.L.Manjunath & Mrs. B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Divorce - Mental cruelty by wife - Parties stayed together continuously for brief period after marriage - During that brief stay husband did not have any grievance about conduct of wife -Wife interested in continuing her martial life - Held, Allegations of cruelty by husband, do not stand proved. No divorce can be granted.
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - Section 13 :[K.L.Manjunath & Mrs. B.V.Nagarathna,JJ] Divorce - Ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by husband clearly implies that he is not interested in continuing his marital relationship - Even in absence of his proving allegations of cruelty against wife, it can be concluded that there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The marriage between Dr. Smitha and Sathyajith was solemnized on 4.8.2003 and was initially living together at Bangalore and Hyderabad. The brief cohabitation period was approximately 1.5 months, during which some disagreements and behavioral issues arose (!) (!) .
The petitioner (husband) alleged mental cruelty and misconduct by the respondent (wife), including disrespect, neglect of household chores, suspicion of infidelity, threats of suicide, and improper conduct, leading him to seek divorce (!) (!) (!) .
The respondent denied allegations of cruelty, asserting that she was living happily with her husband and that the issues were primarily due to interference from the petitioner’s parents. She maintained her willingness to continue the marriage and sought restitution of conjugal rights (!) (!) .
The Family Court found that the petitioner failed to prove cruelty and held that the parties had lived together only briefly, thus reversing the allegations of cruelty. The Court also concluded that the respondent was interested in living with her husband and that her acts did not amount to cruelty (!) (!) .
The Court observed that the respondent had made efforts to reconcile, expressed remorse, and was willing to continue the marital relationship, despite the short duration of cohabitation and separation since February 2004 (!) .
The Court recognized the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, noting that although it is a recognized principle in some jurisdictions, it is not explicitly a ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Nonetheless, the Court acknowledged that the marriage had effectively broken down, especially considering the second marriage of the petitioner after the decree of divorce, which indicated a clear disinterest in continuing the marital relationship (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the Hindu Marriage Act does not currently provide for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, but it acknowledged the evolving legal perspective and the need for such a ground to be recognized in the future (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the divorce decree, and indicated that the marriage still exists legally, but in reality, it has broken down irretrievably. The parties are free to seek appropriate remedies under existing laws (!) (!) .
This summary reflects the Court’s reasoning, the factual background, and the legal principles applied, without referencing specific case law or external statutes beyond the context of the Hindu Marriage Act.
This appeal is filed by the wife challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 15.4.2008 passed in M.C.No.699/2005 by the III Addl.Judge, Family Court, Bangalore by which the marriage solemnized between the parties on 4.8.2003 at Bangalore is dissolved by a decree of divorce and a sum of Rs.20,000/-p.m has been ordered toward interim maintenance from the date of petition till the date of decree along with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-
2. After condoning the delay in filling the appeal, though this matter was posted for orders on I.A.No.II/2008, both the parties were directed to appear before the court to explore the possibility of a settlement. However, on 5.1.2009 the counsel for the respondent filed a photo copy of the certificate of registration of marriage of the respondent with one Smt.Vyshali M. Ashok which was registered on 27.6.2008. On the subsequent dates when the parties appeared, this court directed the parties to settle the dispute amicably by the respondent offering a reasonable permanent alimony to the appellant considering the fact that the respondent had entered into another marriage alliance and under the circumstance practically it would have been difficult for the appellant to get the benefit of any order that would have been made in her favour in the event of the appeal being allowed. The appellant however, did not accept the offer made by the respondent to pay a permanent alimony of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-including a sum of Rs.7,20,000/-paid towards arrears of maintenance. Thereafter the matter was posted on subsequent dates and sufficient time was also granted to the appellant to think over about giving up her right to agitate this appeal by accepting the permanent alimony from the respondent, in view of the respondent having married again. The appellant, though a qualified dentist could not persuade herself to accept any kind of settlement in the matter but on the other hand insisted upon a judgment on merits. Under the circumstances with the consent of parties on both sides, we have heard the appeal at the stage of admission, itself. We have also secured the lower court records and perused the same.
3. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the trial court.
4. The petitioner before the trial court who is the respondent herein filed the petition under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce. According to the petitioner he was married to the respondent as per Hindu rites and custom on 4.8.2003 at Saraswathi convention Centre, Magadi Road, Bangalore. The petitioner is an Engineer by profession. He had studied at Ramakrishna Ashram and that the respondent is a qualified dentist and has obtained Masters Degree in Dental Science (MDS). After marriage the parties left for Hyderabad where the petitioner was working, but the petitioner found that the respondent was very rude and egoistic and adamant in her behaviour while she was always projecting that she was MDS. According to the petitioner, he was put to severe mental agony and cruelty on account of the following factors narrated in the petition:
“a) the respondent never respected the petitioner, his parents and elders and always using foul and abusive language by making much of herself and her parents howsoever she be wrongful.
b) The respondent never performed the household works and never used to do the cooking and always expecting the petitioner to do such works and expected him to take her out to costly restaurants as and when she liked.
c) The respondent always used to be in the dark room not coming out and conversing with the petitioner even after he came back from the office and sending messages after messages in her mobile sitting there in the room being locked inside.
d) The respondent was impossibly careless towards household articles and to say towards the very life itself.
e) The respondent alw
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
