IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – Appeal would not abate only because partner who has obtained decree dies after obtaining decree.

JUDGMENT

Anu Sivaraman, J.—This appeal is preferred by the respondent in M.C.No.831/2010 against the judgment of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, dated 13.08.2015.

2. It is submitted that the husband of the appellant, who has since passed away, had preferred the Matrimonial Case seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In the petition filed by the husband before the Family Court it was contended that the parties were married on 19.04.2002 at GRR Kalyana Mantapa, Narayana Pillai Street, Bengaluru. After the marriage, the parties had lived happily for about ten months, after which it was alleged that the appellant - wife started abusing the husband’s mother and assaulting his mother and sister. A child was born in the marriage. It is stated that on 18.03.2003, the appellant had left matrimonial home without any reason and had refused to rejoin the company of the husband. There were further allegations that criminal cases had been filed by the wife and she along with her father had gone to the office of the husband and abused him in front of his colleagues and insulted him. It is also contended that she had informed him that she was not interested in marrying him and that it was only due to pressure from her parents that she had agreed to the marriage. It was further contended that she used to weep at night, pick up quarrels with the husband without any reason and break household articles. He had therefore issued a legal notice requesting her to give consent for a mutual divorce but the same was not replied by her and he had no other alternative but to file a petition for divorce. It was further stated that an earlier petition for divorce had been filed before the II Additional Family Court, Bengaluru, which was dismissed on 16.04.2007, since he could not pay the balance of interim maintenance and he paid the said amount on 27.06.2009.

3. The appellant - wife had filed the detailed objections denying the contents of the petition. She contended that she had gone to her parents’ house during the month of March 2003, while she was pregnant at the insistence of husband’s mother and sister and she had gone with her parents leaving all her belongings including her academic records, jewellery and other materials in the matrimonial house. It was stated that the respondent - husband did not take care of her and in April 2003, she went to the house of the husband along with her father but she was not allowed to go inside the house and her husband informed her that he can allow her inside the house only if his mother permits him to do so.

4. It was further stated that on 06.10.2003, she gave birth to a male child and the fact was informed to the husband but the husband or his family did not visit her or enquire about the baby or the mother. She admitted the receipt of the legal notice issued by her husband seeking consent for mutual divorce. Since she wished to resume her life with the petitioner she did not agree for mutual divorce. However, she instituted a suit for maintenance before the Principal Family Court, Bengaluru in O.S.No.1/2005, which was decreed and the husband was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to the wife and Rs.2,000/- for her son. However, the petitioner had not paid the maintenance. It was further contended that she was humiliated by the husband’s family as she had no job and she prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. The respondent - husband was examined as PW.1 and the documents Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. The appellant - wife was examined as RW.1 and 17 documents - Exs.R1 to R17 were marked. The Family Court, after considering the contentions advanced held that the contentions raised by the appellant’s husband that the wife had treated him with cruelty stood proved since the wife had filed several cases against the husband and since she had never expressed any willingness to r