The duty of a family holder to maintain their spouse and the importance of family members' testimony in family matters were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. “Whether the trial Court was justified in granting decree of divorce against the appellant on the ground of cruelty ?” is the question involved in this case.

3. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 01.05.1955. Out of the said marriage, the couple begot three daughters and one son. The son unfortunately died on 07.03.1984 as bachelor. Initially the respondent was working as a school teacher and was residing in rented house at Cottonpet, Bengaluru. Later, he purchased house in First Cross, Magadi Road, Bengaluru and the couple were living there.

4. On 03.09.2010 the respondent filed M.C.No.2852/2010 against the appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (‘the Act’ for short) seeking decree of dissolution of the marriage. His case in brief was as follows:

That in the year 1994, the appellant performed the marriage of their daughter Leelavathi with her cousin Prakash against his wish. After such marriage, in 1995 she deserted him and started residing in the house of Leelavathi and Prakash. Due to such desertion, he was forced to eat outside, thereby he developed Ulcer. For that he was treated in Kempegowda Hospital, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru and Ashraya Hospital, Sunkadakatte. During such ailment, the appellant did not visit and take care of him. At the behest of her mother, the respondent sold the site situated at Shankarappa Garden, Magadi Road, Bengaluru. Without his knowledge and consent, she gave away jewelleries gifted by him to her elder sister. She went on filing suits in O.S.364/2009 before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Magadi and O.S. No.6631/2009 before the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru making defamatory allegations against him. Such acts of the appellant caused him cruelty. Therefore, he is entitled to decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

5. The appellant contested the suit denying the allegations of cruelty and desertion. Her case in brief is as follows:

After the untimely death of her son on 07.03.1984, she suffered immense mental set back and depression. She was also undergoing menopause stage. Despite such physical and mental impairment, she satisfied all the needs of the respondent. After the marriage of their third daughter, the respondent himself started to reside with her in the house of Leelavathi and Prakash. He was not at all taking care of her needs. He himself was a foodie, therefore was eating outside. He was forcing other family members also to eat outside. Because of such habit he developed Ulcer and he was treated in the hospital for his Ulcers. The allegations of she gifting of the jewellery was denied. The respondent himself sold the site standing in her name and received the consideration but she has not received any amount out of such sale. The respondent himself left the appellant in the house of his daughter and went back to stay in his house. The children started to take care of her. She was treated as beast in his hands and she suffered all along. Since he was trying to alienate the properties due to the vengeance against her, she was forced to file suits in O.S. No.364/2009 and O.S No.369/2009. Therefore, she sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. The parties adduced the evidence. In support of his case, the respondent got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. The appellant was examined as R.W.1 and her three daughters were examined as R.W.2 to R.W.4.

7. The Trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and decree allowed the petition and granted decree for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that desertion and cruelty alleged by the respondent were proved.

8. The Trial Court held that the filing of the suit more particularly the allegations in Ex.P12 (plaint in O.S.No.6631/2009) are defamatory and attacked the personality of the petitioner imputing unsoundness and forgery of the signature. The Trial Court further held that the respondent was spending for charitable acti