This is petitioner's appeal under Section 19(1) of the

Family Courts Act, challenging the order of dismissal of the

petition filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, by order dated 03.12.2015 in MC

No.169/2014 on the file of the Family Court, Vijayapur,

(hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court' for short).

2.

The parties will be referred with respect to their

status before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3.

The briefly stated facts are that, the petitioner

and the respondent are couple married on 25.11.2002 at

Rampur Village of Vijayapur TaluK as per the Hindu

customs and tradition. After marriage they lead marital

life for about 6 to 7 years and they have two female

children.

- 3 -

4.

The husband is seeking divorce on the ground

that after birth of 2^nd child, wife did not perform marital

obligation by allowing him to have sexual enjoyment and

co-habitation, that she never respected him and his

parents, that she ignored and neglected all traditional

values of the family, always wanted to lead luxurious life

and willfully neglected him. She refused to prepare the

food used to insult him in front of his friends and relatives

and threatened him that he and his family members would

be put behind bars on the allegation of dowry harassment

by filing a false case. It is also stated that three years

prior to filing of the petition, she left his company, stayed

in her parental home along with children and she carried

away all ornaments without informing him and without any

just and reasonable cause. She committed an act of

cruelty against him. She is having an affair with some

person which has mentally disturbed him. She filed a case

against him under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act

at Athani Court and suit for partition before the Civil Court

at Vijayapur. The notice calling upon her to join the

- 4 -

matrimonial life was harshly replied, she has willfully

deserted him and therefore he was constrained to file

petition seeking divorce.

5.

The respondent admits her marriage with the

petitioner, begetting two female children and leading

marital life before parting. She denied the allegations of

cruelty and refusal of co-habitation with him. She never

demanded separate house and it is he who drove her out

of matrimonial home along with children and without any

alternative she was forced to stay away from him. She

has specifically pleaded that the petitioner as well as his

family members ill-treated her that she gave birth to

female children. Petitioner used to beat her without any

cause or any fault of her. He and his family members

demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and gold from her parents, as

they were poor, unable to fulfill such demand. She

underwent surgery during delivery of both the children, for

which no money was spent by her husband. In spite of all

these, she tolerated the ill-treatment, she was subjected

- 5 -

to

harassment,

without

any

alternative

she

was

constrained to file petition under Domestic Violence Act

and also suit seeking partition and share in the properties.

In order to take revenge against her, petitioner has

concocted false ground to file case before the Family

Court.

6.

Before the Family Court, petitioner examined

PWs.1 and 2, Exs.P1 to P7 were marked and the

respondent examined herself as RW1 and Exs.R1 and R2

were marked. By impugned judgment, the Family Court

dismissed the petition imposing cost of Rs.2,000/-.

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, petitioner is before

this Court contending that the order of dismissal is

erroneous, there was no proper appreciation of evidence,

positive evidence was placed before the Family Court

explaining cruelty and desertion committed by the

respondent against him, but the Family Court instead of

drawing adverse inference against wife, it was drawn

against him.

- 6 -

7.

It is the argument of Sri. S.S. Mamadapur,

learned counsel for the petitioner that the Family Court

has not considered the evidence