The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the context of physical and mental cruelty within a marriage.

JUDGMENT

J.M.KHAZI,J. - This appeal filed by the husband under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the impugned judgment and decree in M.C.No.1592/2005 dtd. 22/6/2015, by which the Family Court has granted a decree of divorce under Sec. 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Family Court.

3. FACTS: Briefly stated the facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 25/10/1998, at Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Choultry, Attibele, as per the Hindu customs and rituals. Though in the beginning respondent looked after the petitioner with love and affection, later on he along with his parents started sending the petitioner fortnightly to get money for opening a Bar and Restaurant. He used to come home late in a drunken condition, quarrel and assault the petitioner. He was not satisfied with the fact that at the time of marriage, petitioner's parents gave gold jewels weighing 1 1/2 Kgs and cash of Rs.5,00,000.00 by way of dowry. He was also pestering her to get a motor cycle. During December 2000 assaulted petitioner with a knife.

3.1 It is further case of the petitioner that while she was pregnant, during January 2001, when she went to her parent's house and during check up at the Nursing Home, Doctor advised her to be admitted to the hospital as she was anemic. However, respondent forcibly took her to his residence at Bengaluru. When her health condition deteriorated she was admitted to the hospital by her parents. On 12/9/2001, respondent forced her to return to the matrimonial home. When she suffered severe chest and stomach pain, she was admitted to Vishwabharati Nursing Home. On 15/9/2001, the Doctors informed her that the child has died in the womb. Later when respondent refused to take her to the matrimonial home, without any alternative she went back to her parents house.

3.2 It is further case of the petitioner that during April 2002, on the demand of respondent, the petitioner's father gave him Rs.5,00,000.00 and during May 2002, purchased him a Pulsar motor cycle. Even when she was admitted to Narayana Hrudayalaya, the respondent did not visit her. After her discharge from the hospital, respondent again demanded Rs.5,00,000.00 to purchase a Bar and Restaurant. During March 2003, petitioner gave birth to a son. Respondent and his family members did not even come to see the child. During naming ceremony also the relatives of the petitioners demanded money and created a scene. In April 2005, respondent demanded his father-in-law to transfer the title deeds of choultry to his name and when refused, he threatened to kill the petitioner and her family members including the child. In fact, on 21/4/2015, at the instance of respondent, 4-5 unknown persons entered the house and assaulted the petitioner and her parents, in which incident petitioner's father died. Respondent was not proceeded against for lack of evidence. On 19/5/2005, respondent and his friends attempted to kidnap the son of the petitioner.

3.3 Petitioner is subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the respondent. She was humiliated, insulted and made fun of by the respondent at the home as well as outside. The life of petitioner has become a hell. Petitioner, her mother and son are not safe at the hands of respondent. Inspite of advise by the elders and common friends, respondent has not changed his attitude and without any alternative petitioner is seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

4. Respondent has filed objections admitting the relationship between the parties and the fact that they have a son through the wedlock. However, he has denied all the allegations of demand of dowry, physical and mental harassment attributed to him. He has pleaded that the family of petitioner are very well off whereas he has a humble background. Therefore, they were reluctant to accept the alliance