Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
VINEET KOTHARI, H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, JJ.
Smt. Savithri, W/o. S. Ravindra Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
Sri. S. Ravindra Reddy S/o. D. Shivananadappa - Respondent
M.F.A. No. 100682 of 2014 (FC)
Decided On : 19-04-2017
For the Appellant : Sri. Rajashekar Gunjalli
For the Respondent: Sriyuths Mallikarjun S. Hiremath, Gurubasavaraj S.M.
Headnote:HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Suit for divorce by husband – Ground of mental cruelty by wife – Wife filing criminal case against husband and his family under Section 498-A of Penal Code, ending into acquittal – Wife in her cross-examination admitting about return of all ornaments by husband to her – Wife pressurizing husband to establish a separate residence and to live away from his parents – Wife continued to stay with her parents for more than five years – Wife even joined employment there at parental place, having no intention to stay with husband – Acts of wife, resulting in desertion to husband Acts of wife, resulting into mental cruelty to husband – Husband, is entitled to decree of divorce.
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-b) – Desertion – 'Desertion' for purpose of seeking divorce under Act, means intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause. Thus, it is total repudiation of obligation of marriage. Though it is very difficult to define as to what is desertion, but essence of desertion is abandonment of one spouse by other without reasonable cause. Though mere withdrawal by party to marriage from place need not constitute desertion and intentional abandonment of one spouse is necessary, said intention can be gathered from circumstance of case.
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 – Section 25 – Permanent alimony and maintenance – Application by wife – Wife aged 32 years, at time of institution of suit – Husband getting income of Rs. 25 lakhs per year, capable of affording reasonable maintenance to wife and his minor son – Considering age, educational requirement and necessities of son – Maintenance of Rs. 5000/- p.m. awarded to son and Rs. 10 lakh towards permanent alimony to wife.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bellary, dated 19.12.2013 in M.C.No.42/2013, dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent by a decree of divorce.
2. In her memorandum of appeal, the appellant has contended that the learned Family Judge has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and gave much reliance on the dismissal of the criminal case filed by her for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Dismissal of the criminal case cannot be a ground for granting a decree of divorce by the Family Court. She has further stated that the Court below failed to appreciate that, when the respondent-husband attempted to commit suicide, she, the wife was not in that place. It also failed to notice that the petition for maintenance and suit for partition was filed, since she had no source of income to maintain herself and her son. With this, she prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree under appeal.
3. In response to the notice, respondent has appeared through his counsel. The lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
4. Heard the arguments from both sides, perused the memorandum of appeal, the impugned order, the entire lower Court records and the materials placed before this Court.
5. In the light of the above, the only point that arises for our consideration is;
“Whether the appellant has made out sufficient grounds to allow the appeal as prayed for?”
For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to with their rankings they were holding in the Tribunal below.
6. The petitioner husband had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for brevity), against the respondent seeking dissolution of their marriage said to have been performed on the date 10.05.1999. The summary of the case of the petitioner-husband was that, he married the respondent on 10.05.1999. After the marriage, they resided happily for a period of one year. Thereafter, in the year 2000, the respondent went to her parents’ house for delivery and came back in the year 2001. After her return, she started demanding her husband to put up a separate house. Even after fulfillment of the said demand, she started visiting her parents’ house and started demanding the petitioner to seek a share in the properties in his joint family. At the refusal by him, she started quarreling with him and threatened him of deserting him and also lodging a criminal complaint against him. In view of this mental cruelty, he attempted to commit suicide on 18.03.2001.
It is his further case that the respondent filed a false complaint in C.C.No.2618/2006 and withdrew from his company and for the past 7 years, she is residing separately with her parents. With this, on the ground of cruelty and desertion, he prayed for dissolution of their marriage.
The respondent in her statement of objection, except admitting her marital relationship with the petitioner and living with him till 2006, has denied all other allegations made in the petition. On the other hand, she complained that she was driven from her matrimonial house by the appellant and his parents on 16.07.2006. She made a specific allegation against her father-in-law and stated that it is at his instance, her husband illtreated her. She further stated, it was because of the lack of source of income to maintain herself and her son, she filed a suit in O.S.No.15/2008, through her son, seeking partition of the properties of the petitioner. She has further stated that the petitioner with an intention to undergo second marriage, has driven her out of the matrimonial home. As such, it was the petitioner, who had caused cruelty and voluntarily deserted her. With this, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
The petiti
