JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for brevity ‘FC Act’) calling in question the judgment and decree passed in M.C. No. 107/2018, dated 06.10.2018, by the Court of First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, wherein the Family Court has dismissed the petition filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘HM Act’) filed by the appellant-wife. Therefore, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the appellant-wife has preferred the present appeal.

Brief facts:

2. It is stated that the appellant is the wife and the respondent is the husband and their marriage was solemnized on 14.06.2015 at Shaneshwara Temple, near Geleyara Balaga, Bengaluru as per the customs and tradition prevailing in their community. It is stated that for some time both were leading a happy married life. But thereafter, the respondent developed an affair with some other lady and when it was questioned by the appellant the respondent behaved rudely. Therefore, the respondent had betrayed the appellant and also had played a drama of committing suicide. But really he had not made any such attempt.

3. Further, the appellant has stated that the respondent had meted ill-treatment both mentally and physically and therefore, the appellant started residing along with her parents. Later, the appellant had joined a fashion design course. There also the respondent used to go to that college and he had a doubtful nature and therefore the appellant could not tolerate respondent’s cruelty. Hence, the appellant was constrained to file a petition for divorce. It is also further averred that when the appellant became pregnant, due to the mental agony caused by the respondent, her pregnancy was aborted. Therefore, by making averments regarding cruelty by the respondent, the appellant was constrained to file a petition for divorce before the Family Court.

4. On summons being issued by the said Court, the respondent remained absent and therefore, he was placed ex-parte. The Family Court observed that because of non-appearance of the respondent, the conciliation failed. Then, the Family Court had taken up the case on its merits.

5. The appellant was examined as PW-1 and got marked documentary evidences at Exhibits-P1 to P4 and since the respondent was placed ex-parte, there was no contest made by the respondent. The Family Court framed point for consideration as to whether, the appellant was entitled for a decree of dissolution of marriage. The Family Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant had not produced any evidence to prove cruelty and that due to unbearable torture, the appellant got aborted.

6. Further, the Family Court observed that there was no evidence placed by the appellant, that the respondent had visited her college at Mysuru and caused embarrassment and also further observed that visiting the wife in a college cannot be considered as an embarrassment. Therefore, on these grounds the petition was dismissed. Further, the Family Court observed that if the respondent had visited her college and insulted her in college, then the appellant could have got examined any witness in this regard, but there was no evidence let in by the appellant. Hence, on this ground it disbelieved the version of the appellant and dismissed the petition.

7. Therefore, the findings given by the Family Court was that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent had been cruel and he was ill-treating the appellant. Therefore, by forming this opinion, the Family Court dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the wife has preferred the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent had not appeared before the Court and not contested the case and this conduct itself shows that the respondent may not want to take the appellant as his wife. Further, it was submitted that when the appell