Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Kar) 950

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
S.G. Pandit, M.G.S. Kamal, JJ.
Smt. Jayashree W/o Rajeev – Appellant
Versus
Rajeev S/o Rangrao Deshpande – Respondent
M.F.A. No. 31665 & 31666 of 2012
Decided On : 22-07-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Arunkumar Bakkappa Kinny, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that mental cruelty, as a ground for dissolution of marriage, need not cause injury to the petitioner's health, and it must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The court emphasized the importance of weighing the fact situation with preponderance of probabilities and considering the conduct in relation to matrimonial duties and obligations.

Headnote:
Section 13(1)(i-a) - Dissolution of Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - [MENTAL CRUELTY] - The court dissolved the marriage of the appellant and respondent on the ground of mental cruelty. The court found that the allegations and counter-allegations of serious and reckless nature made by both parties against each other undermined their dignity and reputation, justifying the dissolution of the marriage. The court emphasized that mental cruelty need not cause injury to the petitioner's health, and it must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The court also highlighted that the fact situation should be weighed with preponderance of probabilities, and the conduct in relation to matrimonial duties and obligations should be considered.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty by the appellant-wife. The appellant-wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Both appeals were filed by the wife challenging the grant of divorce and rejection of her petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties made serious and reckless allegations against each other, including allegations of homosexuality and unnatural sex.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations and counter-allegations of serious and reckless nature made by both parties against each other undermined their dignity and reputation, justifying the dissolution of the marriage. The court held that the Family Court was justified in allowing the petition for dissolution of marriage and in rejecting the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The court emphasized that mental cruelty need not cause injury to the petitioner's health, and it must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Family Court was justified in dissolving the marriage of the appellant and respondent on the ground of cruelty and in dismissing the petition of the wife for restitution of conjugal rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mental cruelty need not cause injury to the petitioner's health, and it must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The court also highlighted that the fact situation should be weighed with preponderance of probabilities, and the conduct in relation to matrimonial duties and obligations should be considered.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both appeals and upheld the Family Court's decision to dissolve the marriage and reject the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent-husband was directed to keep a sum of Rs.5,00,000 in Fixed Deposit in the name of the daughter Kum.Pavani and to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.11,000 to the daughter.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. Pandit, J.

Both the above appeals are filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, assailing the judgment dated 23.07.2012 in M.C.No.177/2010 by which, petition filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) is allowed, marriage of the appellant and respondent is dissolved; and judgment dated 23.07.2012 in M.C.No.141/2010 by which, the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights is rejected.

2. Both the appeals are by wife challenging the grant of decree of divorce and rejection of her petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act praying for dissolution of marriage with the appellant-wife. It is stated that the marriage of appellant and respondent had taken place on 24.04.2004 according to the Hindu rites and customs. They lived happily for some time and a girl child namely Kum.Pavani was born. The husband states that when the wife came back to the matrimonial home along with the child, she forced mother of the husband to live separately. It is alleged by the husband that the wife used to quarrel for small reasons. Further the husband alleges that the appellant-wife used to call for unnatural sex and she misbehaved like a devil in the sex. It is also alleged that the appellant-wife forced the husband to commit suicide, so that she could get the job. The husband got issued the legal notice dated 13.01.2005 seeking dissolution of marriage and the appellant-wife had filed a criminal complaint with the Mahila Police. It is stated that the Police authorities advised them to stay together, thereafter they stayed together for some time. the respondent-husband was transferred to Raichur, but the appellant-wife failed to live with him. The appellant-wife, during September 2010 left the matrimonial house and the respondent-husband, with all household utensils including gas cylinders, without informing him.

4. On appearance, the appellant-wife filed objection admitting the marriage and birth of girl child Kum.Pavani. Further, she denied the allegation of misbehaving with the respondent-husband and also denied the allegation of unnatural sex. The appellant-wife also denied the allegation of forcing the respondent-husband to commit suicide to get his employment. She also denies leaving of the matrimonial home in September 2010.

5. The appellant-wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, praying for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that since the date of marriage the attitude of the husband towards the wife was indifferent and there was no enthusiasm by the respondent-husband. Further the wife states that neither respondent-husband nor any other family members of the respondent attended the cradle ceremony of their daughter. After 4 to 5 months, the wife returned to her matrimonial house and the respondent-husband very reluctantly allowed her to reside. The wife alleges that during her absence the husband had developed and involved in homosexuality and the attitude of the respondent-husband towards the wife was very shocking and also that they had no physical contact. Further the wife states that the respondent-husband was taken to Bangalore for treatment with psychiatrist where it was confirmed that he is a homosexual and has a weak capacity of performing physical contact. It is also alleged that the respondent-husband used to assault the appellant-wife on the pretext of not bringing sufficient dowry. Therefore, the respondent-husband started hating the appellant-wife. The respondent-husband was transferred to Raichur and he refused to take wife and daughter along with him to Raichur. After some time, the respondent-husband reluctantly took the wife and daughter to Raichur and kept them in a separate rented house. From then onwards, the respondent-husband failed to discharge his marital obligations and never turned up to wife. The responde