Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD
Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde, JJ.
Roopa - Appellant
Versus
Mrutyunjaya - Respondent
MFA No. 103761/2016 (FC)
Decided On : 15-02-2022
desertion - dissolution of marriage - M.C. No. 222/2015 - The court upheld the plea of desertion and granted a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. The finding on cruelty was set aside as it was not established.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The trial court concluded that the respondent had indeed deserted the petitioner-husband and upheld the plea of cruelty, granting a decree of dissolution of marriage on both grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plea of desertion was established, while the finding on cruelty was set aside. The court also directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 20 lakhs as permanent alimony to the wife.
Issues: The main issues were the allegations of cruelty and desertion in the marriage, as well as the willingness of the parties to resume marital life.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence of long separation and the parties' unwillingness to live together, leading to the conclusion that the wife had deserted the husband. The court also emphasized the wife's preference for her career over the matrimonial relationship.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the judgment and decree in M.C. No. 222/2015 were set aside in part on the ground of desertion, leading to the dissolution of the marriage. The petitioner-husband was directed to pay Rs. 20 lakhs to the respondent-wife as permanent alimony.
JUDGMENT
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - The wife of the petitioner, who suffered a decree for dissolution of marriage in M.C. No. 222/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Belagavi (for short, 'trial Court') in a petition filed by her husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion, is in appeal.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. Certain facts narrated in the pleadings can be summarized as under:
3.1. The petitioner and respondent were married on 22.12.1997 at Haveri. The respondent was doing her internship at the time of marriage. After staying 5 days in the matrimonial house, she left for her parent's house in Belagavi, stayed there for 5 months, and came back to the matrimonial house and lived for 30 days. It is the case of the petitioner-husband that the respondent-wife used to visit her parent's house frequently without there being any justifiable reasons and used to stay there for a long period discarding her marital obligations at her matrimonial house. It is stated that the elder brother and elder sister of the petitioner approached the respondent at her matrimonial house in Belagavi and requested her to join her husband at Haveri. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent returned to her matrimonial house reluctantly. A few years later, the male child was born to the couple. It is alleged that in the month of September-2000 respondent again went to her parent's house along with the child without any reason and consent of the petitioner. It is alleged that the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without any valid reason. The petitioner alleges that he is deprived of the company of his son. This led to the petitioner filing M.C. No. 15/2001 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Haveri for restitution of conjugal rights. In the alternative, he also sought dissolution of marriage.
3.2. The prayer for restitution of conjugal rights was granted in terms of decree dated 30.06.2008. Respondent-wife challenged the said judgement and decree by filing MFA No. 22464/2009. The matter was settled before this Court in terms of compromise petition filed by the parties. In terms of the said compromise petition, the parties agreed to visit each other during weekends. However, it is alleged that the terms of the compromise petition were not adhered to by the respondent-wife. The wife alleges that the husband also did not adhere to the terms of the compromise.
3.3. It is further alleged that the respondent has filed a petition in Crl.Misc. No. 164/2011 alleging domestic violence against the husband. The petitioner further alleged that the wife has not looked after him properly, has treated him with cruelty, and deserted him. As such, he filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage for the second time.
3.4. The respondent contested the matter denying all allegations leveled against her and made a statement that she is ready to join the petitioner and also stated that the husband is insisting her to resign from her job. It is her case that she completed post-graduation after her marriage at the instance of the petitioner and she is pursuing her career after post-graduation and she is not in a position to give up her job. She would state that she would pursue her career as well as continue her marital relationship with the husband and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
3.5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claim. The trial Court after considering the material on record has concluded that the respondent has indeed deserted petitioner-husband and also upheld the plea of cruelty and granted decree of dissolution of marriage on both grounds. Aggrieved by the said decree, the respondent-wife is in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel, Sri Shivaraj S Balloli appearing for the respondent-wife and Sri T.M. Nadaf appearing for the petitioner-husband.
5. Sri Shivaraj S Balloli, learned counsel for the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of desertion as a ground for dissolution of marriage, emphasizing the parties' intention to stay separate and their unwil....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of 'desertion' under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, emphasizing the need to prove factum of ....
The court ruled that to establish desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner must prove both the factum of separation and the intent to permanently cease cohabitation, which was not demon....
Long separation and absence of cohabitation constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, justifying divorce.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in order to prove desertion under S.13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the factum of separation and the intention of bringing cohabitation pe....
Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things.
The burden of proving desertion lies with the appellant, which was not established due to a lack of credible evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The court emphasized that allegations of cruelty and desertion must be substantiated with clear evidence, and unchallenged claims do not warrant dissolution of marriage.
The judgment establishes the grounds for divorce based on cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and emphasizes the importance of evidence in proving these grounds.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
