SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top