N. Kumar , J.—M.F.A. No. 23999/2009 is preferred by the wife challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsi, in M.C No. 29/2006 granting a decree for judicial separation in a petition filed for divorce by her husband. M.F.A. No. 24000/09 is also filed by her challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Sirsi, in M.C No. 8/2007 dismissing her petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned trial Judge did not club both the petitions and record common evidence. He recorded evidence in both cases separately and decided the petition for divorce on merits. While dealing with the wife's petition M.C No. 8/2007 for restitution of conjugal rights in the judgment, though he has set out pleadings of the case and recorded evidence, he has not discussed the evidence on record and dismissed the petition on the ground that already he has passed an order for judicial separation, in M.C No. 29/2006, which should satisfy the wife. Therefore both these appeals are taken up for consideration together and decision to be rendered by this Court in M.F.A. No. 23999/2009 would have a direct bearing on the decision to be rendered in M.F.A. No. 24000/2009. However, for the purpose of deciding these cases on merits, we have taken up for consideration the pleadings and evidence in the petition filed for divorce, i.e., M.C. No. 29/2006 only. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to as they are arrayed to in M.C. No. 29/2006.

FACTUAL MATRIX

Sri Rathnakar, the petitioner-husband, on the date of filing of the petition was working as a Clerk in Canara Bank, Haveri Branch. On that day, Smt. Suvarna, the respondent-wife was also employed in Corporation Bank at Haveri Branch as a Clerk. Prior to the marriage, the petitioner was working at Karehalli Branch at Hassan District. After marriage, in order to live with the respondent, on his request, he was transferred to Haveri.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that he married the respondent on 20.05.2001 at Sri Gopalakrishna temple, Sirsi, in the presence of the elders of the family as per the rites and rituals prevailing in the community. The petitioner is opposed to the mischief of dowry. He did not receive any dowry at the time of marrying the respondent. From his money he provided to the respondent all the day to day requirements in respect of gold ornaments required by the respondent. He lived with the respondent happily for a period of 1 1/2 years. A daughter is born and she is named as Kum. Vidyashree. After the marriage he has looked after the respondent with love and affection. She went to her parent's house for confinement. Thereafter, on her return to the petitioner's house, she started harassing him and his aged mother, who was suffering from Cancer by non co-operation. Petitioner advised the respondent, but she started quarrelling with him and his mother on small matters. Even though petitioner requested the respondent to adjust, she has not cared for his suggestion. She insisted that petitioner's mother should be sent back to her native place, then only she would live with him. Petitioner sent his mother back to Santagal village in Kumta Taluk. Even then the respondent is not co-operating with the petitioner in performing her marital obligations and she has neglected the petitioner. Subsequently, respondent stopped doing household work. Without informing the petitioner she used to be away from the house. She was going to her native place, i.e., Sirsi. She was behaving according to her whims and fancies. She has shown disrespect to the petitioner. She left her daughter Kum. Vidyashree in her native place. When petitioner objected to the same, she threatened to live separately. Respondent was taking care of her relatives very well. But if the petitioner's relatives came to the house, she was not taking care of them. Though respondent was given sufficient opportunity to correct and mend her behaviour, there is no improvem