JUDGMENT

This appeal by the husband aggrieved against the judgment in M.C.No.121/2019 dated 08.02.2021 on the file of I Addl. Principal Family Court at Gadag (for short, ‘Family Court’).

2. The appellant was petitioner before the Family Court. The husband filed petition seeking dissolution of marriage with respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty. The respondent-wife though entered appearance in person has not filed any objection. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 and got marked 7 documents. PW2 was examined in support of the case of the petitioner. The Family Court on consideration of the evidence on record held that petitioner has failed to prove that respondent-wife subjected the petitioner-husband to cruelty.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri S.H.Mittalkod for appellant-husband and learned counsel Sri Mallikarjun C.Hukkeri for respondent-wife.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that petitioner was subjected to cruelty by respondent-wife. The respondent-wife appeared and has chosen not to engage the counsel and contest the petition by filing objection. The petitioner has examined PW1 and PW2 and marked 7 documents. It is submitted that in the absence of any evidence opposing the averments in the petition or to disprove the statements of PW1 and PW2 and non-rebuttable of the 7 documents, the Family Court ought to have allowed the petition by granting decree of divorce.

5. Learned counsel for respondent-wife would submit that the petitioner-husband has alleged cruelty. Initial burden is on the person who alleges cruelty to prove that he was subjected to cruelty by the spouse. Merely because the wife has not contested the petition, inference cannot be drawn that husband was subjected to cruelty by his wife. It is submitted that Family Court justified in rejecting the petition. Thus, prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, we are of the view that the appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the order of the Family Court for the following reasons.

7. The marriage between petitioner-husband and respondent-wife solemnized on 06.12.2017 is not in dispute in this appeal. It is alleged by the husband that wife stayed with him only for 10 – 15 days and the wife was not interested to lead marital life as a wife. The respondent joined as a Executive in the NGO, Deshpande Foundation, Hubbali and was traveling from Gadag to Hubbali for a week and started to stay in Hubballi for weeks together. The wife was visiting husband at Gadag only for a day or two. Even during visit to Gadag, she was not joining the company of the petitioner. She was behaving in arrogant manner by abusing the husband in filthy language. It is further alleged that the petitioner approached Mahila Samukhya Kendra, Gadag for counseling wherein the respondent-wife stated that she is not ready and willing to lead marital life with the petitioner-husband.

8. It is further alleged that the respondent-wife is having affair with one Basavaraj Kuri who is working as Programme Manager, Deshpande Foundation, Hubballi. The respondent-wife is living with said Basavaraj Kuri. In view of the said illicit relationship of wife, the petitioner is being harassed physically and mentally. Petitioner has alleged illicit relation of his wife with Basavaraj Kuri. However Basavaraj Kuri is not party to the proceedings. Further except oral evidence which is self-serving, no other evidence is placed on record. The petitioner has failed to prove that he was subjected to cruelty due to illicit relation of his wife with Basavaraj Kuri.

9. The petitioner has examined himself as PW1. The statement made in affidavit as examination-in-chief is only a reiteration of the pleadings in the petition. PW2 examined in support of the case of the petitioner would only state that PW2 is representative of Mahila Samukhya Kendra and states that counseling was carried on to the petitioner and respondent in their office. I