The judgment establishes the importance of corroborating evidence, such as medical records, in proving allegations of assault and cruelty. It also clarifies the impact of previous withdrawals and reunions on the maintainability of subsequent petitions for divorce.

JUDGMENT

K.S. Mudagal, J. - Heard.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce granted against her, the respondent/wife in M.C. No. 505/2010 on the file of learned V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, has preferred this appeal.

3. Respondent was the petitioner and the appellant was the respondent in M.C. No. 505/2010. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

4. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 20.06.2005 at Bengaluru. Out of the said wedlock, the couple was blessed with a daughter, by name "Anuskha", born on 20.07.2006.

5. On 18.07.2007, the petitioner filed M.C. No. 1603/2007 before the Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. On 16.11.2007, on service of notice in M.C. No. 1603/2007, the respondent/wife filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 977/2007 against the petitioner and his elder sister under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "DV Act") alleging that the petitioner and his elder sister have subjected her to physical, emotional and financial abuse. That was allowed on 04.12.2007 awarding maintenance, separate accommodation and protection order.

6. The petitioner challenged that order before the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1366/2007. The Sessions Court allowed that appeal on 26.03.2008 on the ground that the petitioner should have been given adequate opportunity to lead his evidence. After remand and on hearing the parties, learned Magistrate allowed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 977/2007 by order dated 16.12.2009. The petitioner withdrew M.C. No. 1603/2007 by filing memo dated 13.08.2008 as per Ex. P4 on the ground that the parties are residing together and they have decided to put an end to all disputes amicably.

7. Challenging the order in the DV Act proceedings, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 1024/2010 before this Court. Challenging the order of remand passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1366/2007, the respondent/wife also had filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 453/2008 before this Court. However, she withdrew that petition by filing joint memo on 18.06.2008 as per Ex. P5 on the ground that the parties are willing to lead their matrimonial life together in house No. 13/1 of Prakash Nagar, Bengaluru.

8. In Criminal Revision Petition No. 1024/2010, the petitioner filed a memo saying that he is ready to provide a separate house for the respondent. On that basis, this Court disposed of Criminal Revision Petition No. 1024/2010 by order dated 18.07.2011, recording the undertaking of the petitioner to provide a house in Prakash Nagar to the respondent and her child and ordering payment of maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. This Court also directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to meet the child on her birthday and the respondent shall not trouble him during such visit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed two applications to recall that order which came to be rejected on 19.11.2012 and 17.01.2014.

9. When the aforesaid proceedings were going on, the petitioner filed another petition in M.C. No. 505/2010 on 17.02.2010 under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent seeking decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Following are the grounds of cruelty alleged by him:-

(i) That the respondent taunts him as a limp person and insults him;

(ii) She has filed a false complaint before the police against him and his family members;

(iii) She assaults him and his family members;

(iv) She has deserted his company thereby deprived him of the conjugal life.

10. The respondent opposed the petition denying the allegations of cruelty, filing of false complaint, assaulting him and his family members. She claimed that the petitioner himself subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, therefore, she is living separately.

11. In support of his claim, the petitioner g