Back
High Court of Karnataka
K.L. MANJUNATH & A.V. CHANDRASHEKARA, JJ.
G.U. Mrs. Vijayalakshmi
Versus
Siddesh S. Hombaradi
M.F.A. No. 8811 of 2009 (MC)
Decided On : 29-11-2013
Cruelty - Dissolution of Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 - Section 13(1)(ia) - The court discussed the legal provisions related to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing the need for tolerance, respectful behavior, and the grave and weighty nature of conduct constituting cruelty. The court also highlighted the impact of false, scandalous, and baseless allegations on the grounds of cruelty, and the evaluation of evidence based on preponderance of probabilities.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the legally wedded wife, was accused of cruelty by the respondent husband, leading to a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. The Trial Court granted the divorce, which was challenged in the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had meted out cruelty to the respondent, as evidenced by false complaints, scandalous allegations, and baseless accusations, leading to mental agony and harassment. The court concluded that the marriage should be dissolved by a decree of divorce.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the appellant had treated the respondent with cruelty and whether the appeal should be allowed to set aside the order of granting divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evaluation of evidence, including the impact of false and scandalous allegations, the need for tolerance and respectful behavior in marriage, and the grave and weighty nature of conduct constituting cruelty.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the Trial Court's decision to grant the divorce, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment in M.C.No.51/2007.
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.
1. The appellant was the legally wedded wife of the respondent herein. Their marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2004 as per the Hindu rites. On a petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, by the respondent herein for dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty has been allowed vide considered order dated 07.11.2009 in M.C.No.51/2007 by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Davanagere. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.
2. The appellant was the respondent in the Trial Court and the respondent was petitioner in the Trial Court. Parties will be referred to as petitioner and respondent as per their status in the cause title of the Trial Court.
3. The petitioner is the only son to his parents and respondent is a Law Graduate. After the solemnization of their marriage on 24.04.2004, respondent started living with the petitioner and did not take any interest in the family affairs. She was picking up unnecessary quarrels with the petitioner for silly reasons and was in the habit of going to her parents house frequently and stay for long time. Her behaviour was adamant and at times assaulted the petitioner. She had insisted him to make a separate house so that she alone could live with him. The mother of the petitioner did not have good health and she was very much worried about her son's plight and lost her breath on 19.01.2007. Her attitude caused mental agony and severe cruelty to the petitioner and as such, he chose to file a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.
4. The respondent appeared through her Counsel and filed detailed objections denying all the material averments in regard to cruelty. According to her, petitioner himself used to abuse her by using vulgar language and used to come home late in the night having consumed liquor and used to pick up quarrels with her. It is her case that he had married a woman by name Mamata of Bangalore, who was his colleague in his branch office. It is her allegation that he harassed her to bring additional dowry from her parents house and therefore, she had lodged a complaint to the police. In order to avoid arrest at the hands of the police, the petitioner chose to file a petition seeking divorce. Hence, she has requested the Court to dismiss the petition.
5. Petitioner has been examined as PW1 and his father has been examined as PW2. In all 16 documents have been got marked. The respondent has been examined as RW1 and no documents have been got marked on her behalf.
6. After hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Judge has chosen to allow the petition and thereby grant the decree of divorce by framing the following three points for consideration:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent treated him with cruelty?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce?
3. What order?
7. The learned Judge has answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and consequently petition is allowed.
8. It is contended before this Court that the learned Judge has not properly analysed oral and documentary evidence in right perspective and that a wrong approach has been adopted to the real state of affairs. It is further contended that the aspect of cruelty alleged by the petitioner has not been effectively proved and that the petitioner himself was guilty of cruelty. It is further contended that the decisions referred to by the learned Judge are not applicable to the facts of the case and that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is opposed to law, facts and probabilities. It is further contended that the final order is passed on surmises and conjectures and that the oral evidence and documentary evidence have not been properly evaluated. Hence, it is prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the order of granting divorce in M.C.No.51/2007.
9. Having heard the learned Counsels and having perused the records, following points
AI
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
