The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference, or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure to establish mental cruelty in a marriage.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J. - This appeal under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 3/10/2016 passed in M.C.No.1019/2010 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, by which the petition filed by the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage, was allowed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 26/4/1999 at Sri Chowdeshwari Kalyana Mantapa, Vijayanagar, Bangalore as per the customs and rituals. It is averred that the couple led happy married life for some days and thereafter the appellant started showing her colours. She used to prefer luxurious life which was not acceptable in the traditional family of the respondent and she never used to respect or wish the friends, relatives or guests. It is further averred that appellant used to disrespect the elders and refused to join the respondent at Bagepalli, the work place of the respondent. Hence he was constrained to set up a residence at Bangalore and he used to travel every day to Bagepalli.

3. It is pleaded that out of the wedlock a female child was born on 3/4/2000. It is pleaded that appellant has locked the respondent's mother in the room and went to her parental house. She has threatened to commit suicide by consuming poison, she also started black-mailing the respondent and expected to act as per her wish. It is further pleaded that appellant has attempted to commit suicide by hanging over the ceiling fan in the bedroom and on hearing the cry of the child, the respondent broke open the door, thus such act has caused mental cruelty to the respondent. It is also pleaded that appellant left the matrimonial home in the month of December 2003 and since then there is no conjugal relationship between the couple. It is averred that appellant was arrogant, career oriented and she had refused to join the matrimonial home, which made the life of the respondent miserable.

4. The appellant has entered appearance and filed statement of objections by admitting relationship between the parties and birth of the child. It is averred that allegations of ill treatment, harassment and cruelty are false and without any basis. It is the mother and brother of the respondent, who were harassing the appellant and tried to bring the difference of opinion between the couple. It is further averred that respondent never treated the appellant and the child with love and affection, he used to treat the appellant as a maid servant and the family members have caused mental harassment to the appellant. It is also averred that appellant and respondent were meeting in different places and have also visited Goa, Chennai and Mysore, even though they were not living under one roof, the appellant had fulfilled all the desires of the respondent as a dutiful wife. It is pleaded that appellant had never refused to lead marital life with the respondent and the allegations of cruelty and desertion are created for the purpose of filing the petition.

5. The Family Court has recorded the evidence. The respondent examined himself as PW.1 and other four witnesses as PWs.2 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The appellant examined herself as RW.1 and another witness as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. The Family Court on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties vide common judgment dtd. 3/10/2016 allowed the petition filed by the respondent/husband seeking dissolution of marriage and dismissed the petition filed by the appellant seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties both the appeals are heard together.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Family Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record and has come to erroneous conclusion that the respondent has proved the grounds of cruelty and desertion and granted decree of divorce. It is submitted that the Family Court has not at all consi