Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 1339
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALOK ARADHE, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, JJ.
Smt R Bhagya - Appellant
Versus
Sri S A Gangadhar - Respondent
MFA No.7124 of 2016 (FC) C/W MFA No.7637 of 2016 (FC).
Decided on : 29-05-2023.
For the Appellant :Sri C.S.Madhu, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Patel D Karegowda, Advocate
Headnote:(A) Family Law - Maintenance - Applicability of moral obligation for maintenance when marital responsibilities are in question. Grounds for dissolution of marriage - Requirements for proving cruelty and desertion. (Paras 12, 15, 19, 22, 24)
(B) The Family Court dismissed the maintenance petition under M.C. No.5/2014, where the husband claimed maintenance post-amputation, but evidence of the wife's earnings was not substantiated. M.C. No.36/2013 for divorce was dismissed as the grounds of cruelty and desertion were not adequately proved, and no specific instances were provided. Issues arose regarding the assessment of evidence related to desertion and cruelty. The Family Court's findings were affirmed based on a lack of proof for claims made. (Paras 24, 23, 20, 21)
Findings of Court:
The maintenance petition was dismissed and the divorce petition was affirmed due to insufficient evidence of cruelty and desertion.
Issues: The primary issues addressed were the validity of the maintenance awarded and the substantiation of the claims for divorce based on alleged cruelty and desertion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to support claims for maintenance and for establishing grounds for divorce, upholding the Family Court's decisions due to a lack of compelling evidence.
Result: MFA No. 7124/2016 allowed. M.C. 5/2014 dismissed. MFA No. 7637/2016 dismissed, with affirmation of the Family Court's dismissal of the divorce petition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner contests family court decrees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. marital history and allegations are detailed. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. evidence presented in maintenance case. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. arguments on maintenance and earning capacity. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. arguments for error in family court's findings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. court evaluates evidence for cruelty/ desertion. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. court affirms family court's conclusions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. final orders issued by the court. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - MFA. No.7124/2016 is filed by the respondent/wife in M.C.No.5/2014 on the file of Family Court, Tumkur. In terms of the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.09.2016, the Family Court, allowed the petition filed by the husband in part and directed the wife to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the husband. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the wife is in appeal in MFA No.7124/2016.
2. MFA No.7637/2016 is filed by wife challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2016 in M.C. No.36/2013 on the file of the Family Court at Tumkur. In terms of the said judgment and decree, the petition filed by the wife seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized with the respondent is dismissed. Hence, the wife is in appeal seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized on 30.03.2000.
3. Since the parties in both the proceedings are the same, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as husband and wife in both appeals.
4. The brief facts of the case in M.C. No.5/2014 are:
The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 30.03.2000. The husband filed a petition stating interalia that after the marriage the husband and wife lived together for three months in the husband's native place and thereafter the couple resided in Tumkur. A child was born one year after the marriage and the couple led happily married life for 9 years. It is further stated that the wife had studied only up to 10th standard and after the marriage, husband got her admitted to B.Com course. It is stated that, the husband suffered a gangrene attack to his left leg in the year 2009, treatment did not yield the desired result and his leg was amputated on 30th December 2009. It is alleged that the wife left the company of the husband after the amputation. Since the husband's leg is amputated, he is not in a position to earn. Hence he has filed the petition seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month and it is contended by him that his wife is earning Rs.25,000/- per month from her avocation.
5. The wife contested the petition. She denied allegations levelled against her. It is her case that the petition seeking maintenance is filed as a counterblast to her petition in M.C. No. 36/2013 where she sought divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The wife denied her husband's claim that he is not in a position to earn and also denied that she is earning Rs.25,000/- per month and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
6. Facts in M.C. No. 36/2013.
This petition is by the wife for the dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife contended that the wife started residing with the husband after the marriage. Further, the wife's parents provided financial assistance to the husband to purchase a mini lorry and a ten-wheeler lorry. It is further stated that from the wedlock a child Jamuna was born. It is alleged that the respondent started ill-treating and harassing the wife, used to assault her and demanded dowry from her parents. It is further alleged that the husband was not discharging his marital obligation towards the wife and used to quarrel without any reason. It is further contended that the efforts of the elders who advised the husband to lead normal happy marital life with the wife went in vain. Hence the petition is filed for dissolution of marriage.
7. The husband contested the petition.
