2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41994
M.F.A.No.2388/2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2388/2014 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.B.L.GEETHA
D/O LATE B.M.LAKSHMIKANTHAIAH
W/O D.SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT SHANKARA NILAYA
NO.27, GOKULA ROAD, II CROSS
S.S.PURAM, TUMKUR
TUMKUR DISTRICT 3 572 102 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.N.NITISH FOR SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SRI D.SHIVAKUMAR
S/O DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.225, 6TH CROSS
ASHOKNAGAR, TUMKUR
TUMKUR DISTRICT 3 572 102
&RESPONDENT
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT READ WITH SECTION
28 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2014 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMKUR IN M.C.No.392/2013.
M.F.A.No.2388/2014
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND
RESERVED
ON
17.08.2022,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce
granted against her, the respondent in M.C.No.392/2013 on
the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkur has
preferred this appeal.
2.
By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial
Court has allowed the petition of the husband for decree of
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and
desertion.
3.
For the purpose of convenience, the parties will
be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the
trial Court.
4.
The
marriage
of
the
petitioner
and
the
respondent was solemnized on 02.07.1991 at B.C.Palya,
Madhugiri Taluk. The parties belong to Hindu Religion and are
governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The couple have
3
no biological issues. They fostered a girl by name Disha
Bhargavi.
5.
The petitioner was working as Station Master in
Hirehalli Railway Station. In June 2009, he got issued notice
as per Ex.D1 through his Counsel to the respondent alleging
that the respondent has subjected him to cruelty by abusing
him in foul language, posing threats of commission of suicide
leaving suicide note and filing of false dowry cases. He
further alleged in the notice that she has deserted him and
despite intervention of the elders, she has not joined him. He
claimed that there is no meaning in continuing the marital
relationship and called upon her to join in filing the petition
for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.
6.
Thereafter on the very same allegations of cruelty
and desertion, the petitioner filed M.C.No.90/2009 which was
renumbered as M.C.No.392/2013. He also alleged that the
respondent was in the habit of going out of the house without
taking permission, she used to behave rudely with family
members and child and she harassed him making false
complaint to the police. He claimed that she has withdrawn
4
from his society for more than two years preceding the
petition and therefore sought decree of divorce.
7.
The respondent contested the petition denying
the allegations made against her. She contended that the
petitioner himself subjected her to cruelty and withdrew from
her society. She further alleged that they led happy marital
life for 17 years till the petitioner developing illicit relationship
with one Nagalakshmi @ Lakshmi. At her instance, her
brother-in-law Devaraj and her brothers advised to withdraw
from that. He flatly refused and has filed the petition in
question making false and disgraceful allegations. Ultimately,
leaving her and fostered daughter in the matrimonial home,
he is residing with that woman.
8.
To substantiate his claim, the petitioner got
examined himself as PW.1 and one D.S.Siddappa as PW.2.
Exs.P1 to P6 were marked on his behalf. The respondent was
examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 to R12 were marked on her
behalf.
5
9.
The trial Court on hearing both side, by the
impugned judgment and decree allowed the petition granting
decree of divorce on the following grounds:
(i)
The
respondent
has
made
unsubstantiated
allegations of adultery against the petitioner which amounts
to character assassination of the alleged adulterer and her
family members. That amounts to mental cruelty to the
petitioner;
(ii)
The petitioner has proved that since 2009 the
respondent has withdrawn from his society and the
matrimonial home due to her illicit relationship with her
brother-in-law. Therefore the ground of adultery is also
proved;
(iii)
Having regard to the income and the needs of the
petitioner/husband,
sum
of
Rs.8,000/-
per
month
is
reasonable amount as permanent alimony to the respondent
till her life time.
10.
The husband has not challenged the order of
alimony. Thereby that part of the order has attained finality.
Being aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the wife has
6
preferred this appeal. Despite service of notice, the
respondent/husband did not appear to contest the appeal.
11.
Submissions of Sri K.N.Nitish, learned Counsel
for the appellant:
(i)
Neither in the notice Ex.D1 nor in the petition,
the petitioner