IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF MAY, 2022

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

MFA NO.102625/2015 (MC)

BETWEEN:

SHASHIDHAR,

S/O IRAPPA CHACHADI,

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

OCC: PVT. SERVICE,

R/O KUMARESHWARNAGAR,

DHARWAD TALUK,

DHARWAD DISTRICT.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. VIJAYALAXMI,

W/O SHASHIDHAR CHACHADI,

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O.C/O BASAVARAJ MUDHOL,

HALAGANNAVAR CHAWAL,

NEAR RAILWAY STATION UNDER BRIDGE,

2

APMC ROAD,

HAVERI TALUK,

HAVERI DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

***

MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY

COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

DATED 17.07.2015 PASSED IN M.C.NO.175/2014 ON THE

FILE

OF

THE

PRINCIPAL

JUDGE

FAMILY

COURT,

DHARWAD, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY THE

PETITIONER/HUSBAND UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR JUDGMENT, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

JUDGMENT THIS DAY, K.S. HEMALEKHA J., DELIVERED

THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

“Quoad hume et quoad hume, these people

cannot consummate the marriage” quoted by the

House of Lords (And Privy Council) in the case of G.

–vs- G., [LR 1924 AC 349], holding that two people

should not be tied up together for the rest of their life

in a state of misery.

3

2.

The present appeal is preferred by the

husband assailing the judgment and decree dated

17.07.2015, passed in M.C. No.175/2014, on the file

of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad, whereby

the petition filed by the husband under Section

13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Act” for short) seeking decree of

divorce on the ground of cruelty came to be

dismissed.

3.

The husband filed the petition under

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, seeking decree of divorce

on the ground of cruelty. The marriage solemnized on

13/05/2013 is not disputed by the parties. It is

averred by the husband that the wife was co-operative

for one month, however, her behavior altogether

changed later on. It is averred that she refused to do

household work, also started making allegations

against her husband that he is incompetent to

4

discharge his matrimonial obligations, he is an unfit

person to be a husband, the allegation of impotency

was disclosed not only before him, but also before

relatives of both parties, which caused lot of

embarrassment to the husband resulting in mental

torture, which was intolerable to lead the life with his

wife and thus, sought for a decree of divorce.

4.

On the other hand, the wife in her

objections denied the averments made in the petition

and averred that she had come to the matrimonial

home to lead a happy married life, however, her

dream to lead a happy married life went in vain due to

the nature and distance maintained by the husband.

It is averred by the wife that the husband is not

interested in the martial life and he would always stay

away for one or the other reason due to which it

created a doubt in her mind regarding his competency

5

to lead marital life and that he might be an impotent

person incompetent to lead marital life. It is further

averred that she was always ready to discharge her

matrimonial obligations and the husband, in order to

cover his own defects, has filed the petition for

divorce.

5.

The Family Court framed the following

points on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:

1.

Whether the petitioner/ husband proves

that the respondent/ wife subjected him to

cruelty after solemnization of marriage?

2.

Whether the petitioner/ husband is entitled

to the decree of divorce as sought for?

3.

Wha