The judgment emphasizes the high threshold for proving cruelty and desertion as grounds for divorce, highlighting the need for grave and serious instances of mistreatment and a clear intention to end the marital relationship.

JUDGMENT

VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. - This Miscellaneous First Appeal under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been filed by the petitionerhusband challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 14/9/2011 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Mysuru, in M.C.No.335/2008, dismissing his petition filed under Sec. 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act').

2. The parties are referred to by the rank assigned to them before the Family Court.

3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 20/4/2000 at Saraswathi Kalyana Mantapa, II Stage Banashankari, Bengaluru, as per the customs prevailing in their community. After the marriage, the couple lived together in the matrimonial house cordially and the respondent-wife gave birth to a girl child in the month of September 2000. The respondent had spent the pre-natal and post-natal period in the house of her father at Mysuru and after delivery, she returned to matrimonial house along with the child, but stayed with the husband only for a short period. It is the specific case of the petitioner-husband that after the wife returned to matrimonial home along with the child, her behaviour and attitude towards the petitioner and his family members changed and she was putting forward unreasonable demands including the demand to shift their residence to Mysuru or to stay in her parents house at Mysuru. Since the petitioner refused to leave his parents and his job at Bengaluru, the respondent started quarreling with him on petty issues and all of a sudden, she left to Mysuru without even informing him and started residing in her parents house. Efforts made by the petitioner to bring her back were all in vain and the panchayats held in this regard also failed. It is his case that subsequently, in order to settle the strained relationship between the parties, he moved to Mysuru and purchased a new house at Mysuru and started residing there with the wife and child and also his parents. It is his case that even thereafter, the respondent did not change her attitude and behaviour and she refused to take care of his parents and on the other hand, she was insisting the petitioner to come and reside along with her in her parents house. On 16/9/2005, abruptly she had left the matrimonial house and started residing in her parents house and all efforts made by the petitioner to bring her back failed and it is under these circumstances, he had filed a petition under Sec. 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Act, with a prayer to dissolve his marriage with the respondent solemnized on 20/4/2000 by a decree of divorce.

4. The respondent-wife has contested the petition by filing her statement of objection. While admitting the relationship, she has denied the allegations made against her in the petition. It is her specific case that after she became pregnant, when she was in her parents house, the petitioner developed illegal intimacy with one of his colleague by name Veena and because of this reason, he started ill-treating her. She has also further stated that since the parents of the petitioner were ill-treating her, she was constrained to leave the company of the petitioner and take shelter in her parents house. She has also stated that subsequently the petitioner had developed the habit of consuming liquor and he used to return home late night in an intoxicated state and used to harass her. She has also stated that the petitioner was in the habit of womanizing and he did not take care of the respondent and the child nor did he show any love and affection towards them. She has also stated that after the petitioner purchased a house at Mysuru, she had joined him in the said house, but the petitioner's mother who was residing with him used to harass her and even the petitioner at her instance was harassing her. It is under these circumstances, she was constrained to leave the matr