The judgment establishes that a spouse's unwillingness to reconcile and prolonged separation can amount to mental cruelty, justifying a divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. Hemalekha, J.

1. The appellant/wife has preferred this miscellaneous first appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 10/04/2012, passed in M.C. No. 234/2011, on the file of the Family Court Judge, Davangere, allowing the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of convenience) seeking divorce.

2. The appellant/wife (hereinafter referred to as "wife" and respondent/husband would be referred to as "husband" for the sake of convenience).

3. The husband filed the petition seeking divorce invoking Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act, contending that their marriage was solemnized on 23/04/2007 and that the wife treated with cruelty and left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. It is further contended that from the beginning itself the wife was not co-operating in discharging her marital obligations. There are no issues in their marital relationship. It is further case that the wife was incidental to commit suicide and also threatened that she will file criminal complaint under the provisions of dowry harassment. Ultimately, the wife left the matrimonial home and went to her parental home in the year 2010 and inspite of several requests made by husband, the wife has refused to rejoin the company and thereby living separately with her parents. It is further contended that wife has willfully refused and neglected to lead a happy married life. Having no other alternative, the husband had earlier filed a petition in M.C. No. 184/2010 seeking divorce and the said petition ended in compromise and both mutually agreed to lead a happy married life. It is further contended that inspite of the compromise entered into between the parties, the wife did not stay at the marital home for long and in due course left the marital home. Having no other remedy available to the husband, filed a petition in M.C. No. 234/2010 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

4. On service of notice, the wife appeared and filed her objections contending that the husband treated her in a respectful way for about three months, but after three months the husband harassed her to bring dowry from her parents. It is further contended by the wife that the matrimonial relationship was not cordial and the wife tried to adjust with the husband thinking that one day or the other he would mend his ways, but the husband did not co-operate in the marital obligations. It is further contended that the husband has fallen to bad vices like alcohol and women contacts and though M.C. 184/2010 was compromised and as per the compromise, wife was staying with the husband for a period of one week and he was good with her, however, the same was not continued. It is her case that the husband dropped the wife to her parental home without reasonable cause. As the husband refused to lead a happy married life, the parents of the wife had complained to the women's police station and after the complaint, the husband was directed to take his wife to the matrimonial home, but instead of taking the wife to the matrimonial home, the husband has filed M.C. 234/2011 seeking divorce and as such, sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. The trial Court, based on the pleading of the parties framed issues:

6. The husband in support of his case, examined himself as PW. 1 and got marked documents Exs. P-1 to P-4, while the wife examined herself as RW. 1 and no documents were marked. The Family Court, on the basis of the evidence on record, decreed the petition filed by the husband under 13(1)(ia) of the Act. However, dismissed the petition insofar as 13(1)(ib) of the Act is concerned.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the wife has filed this present miscellaneous first appeal.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Maheshwarappa and learned counsel for the respondent, Sri B. Hemanth Raj and perused the materi