Courts uphold divorce on evidence of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act; custody decisions hinge on parental conduct and child welfare.

JUDGMENT :

K. V. ARAVIND, J.

1. Heard Sri. Raja Subrahmanya Bhat B., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Ramesh P. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. These appeals arise out of a matrimonial dispute and issues relating to child custody between the same parties. As common questions are involved and learned counsel for both sides have advanced common arguments, the appeals are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranks in M.C.No.5066/2016 for convenience.

4. The husband instituted M.C. No.5066/2016 on 16.11.2016 before the VI Additional Principal Family Court, Bengaluru, the [Family Court], seeking dissolution of marriage under Sections 13 (1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the [1955 Act] The Family Court granted a decree of divorce, and also awarded interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month payable to the respondent-wife from 29.03.2018 till the date of the impugned order. While considering the respondent’s application under Section 25 of the 1955 Act, the Family Court further directed payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- from the date of the impugned judgment until such time as the wife becomes disentitled to receive the said maintenance.

5. MFA No.546/2024 has been filed by the wife calling in question the judgment and decree of divorce. MFA No.1681/2024 is preferred by the husband assailing the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2023 insofar as it relates to the direction to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- by way of permanent alimony.

5.1 MFA No.645/2024 is preferred by the wife assailing the order dated 04.12.2023 passed in G & WC No.41/2023, whereby the petition filed under Section 7 (a) and Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and Sections 6 and 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with (g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeking custody of the minor ward Sonal, came to be rejected, while only granting her visitation rights.

6. The brief facts, as pleaded, are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 14.11.2011 at Shivashakti Palace Kalyana Mantapa, Haveri. The petitioner is a B.E. graduate and was employed with M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Ltd., Bengaluru. The respondent is a postgraduate holding an M.Tech degree and was working as an Assistant Professor at ASC College of Engineering, Mysore Road, Bengaluru. It is stated that after the marriage, the respondent joined the petitioner at Bengaluru.

6.1 It is alleged that the respondent began to dominate and issue commands to the petitioner’s family members and did not take responsibility for household chores. It is further alleged that she frequently criticised the petitioner and addressed his parents in a disrespectful manner. The petitioner asserts that the respondent used derogatory expressions for his parents and abused him verbally. It is also alleged that she expressed displeasure over his professional advancement. According to the petitioner, although he tolerated such conduct in the hope that matters would improve, the alleged acts of cruelty continued and escalated.

6.2 It is stated that on one occasion, when the petitioner accompanied the respondent to the market, she not only quarrelled with him but also allegedly assaulted him by holding his collar in public. The petitioner claims that he tolerated her conduct as she was then pregnant. It is further alleged that the respondent insisted, without justification, that the petitioner accompany her to her doctor merely to harass him, though such consultation was not required.

6.3 The respondent gave birth to a female child, Sonal, on 01.09.2012. After delivery, she resided with her parents at Haveri and allegedly did not respond to the petitioner’s phone calls. It is further alleged that the respondent abused the petitioner, his parents and even the child. The petitioner asserts that he was not invited for