1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3253 OF 2008

NARENDRA

… APPELLANT

VERSUS

K. MEENA

… RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Appellant husband, whose

decree for divorce passed by the trial Court has been set aside by the

impugned judgment dated 8^th March, 2006 passed by the High Court

of Karnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.171 of

2002 (FC).

2.

The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell, are as

under :

The Respondent wife filed Miscellaneous First Appeal under

Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to

as “the Act”) before the High Court as she was aggrieved by the

Digitally signed by

NARENDRA PRASAD

Date: 2016.10.06

16:23:11 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

judgment and decree dated 17^th November, 2001, passed by the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C. No.603 of 1995

under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act filed by the Appellant husband

seeking divorce.

3.

The Appellant husband had married the Respondent wife on 26^th

February, 1992. Out of the wedlock, a female child named Ranjitha

was born on 13^th November, 1993. The case of the Appellant was that

the Respondent did not live happily with the Appellant even for a

month after the marriage. The reason for filing the divorce petition

was that the Respondent wife had become cruel because of her highly

suspicious nature and she used to level absolutely frivolous but

serious allegations against him regarding his character and more

particularly about his extra-marital relationship. Behaviour of the

Respondent wife made life of the Appellant husband miserable and it

became impossible for the Appellant to stay with the Respondent for

the aforestated reasons. Moreover, the Respondent wanted the

Appellant to leave his parents and other family members and to get

separated from them so that the Respondent can live independently;

and in that event it would become more torturous for the Appellant to

stay only with the Respondent wife with her such nature and

behaviour. The main ground was cruelty, as serious allegations were

3

levelled about the moral character of the Appellant to the effect that he

was having an extra-marital affair with a maid, named Kamla.

Another important allegation was that the Respondent would very

often threaten the Appellant that she would commit suicide. In fact,

on 2^th July, 1995, she picked up a quarrel with the Appellant, went to

the bathroom, locked the door from inside and poured kerosene on her

body and attempted to commit suicide. On getting smell of kerosene

coming from the bathroom, the Appellant, his elder brother and some

of the neighbours broke open the door of the bathroom and prevented

the Respondent wife from committing suicide. The aforestated facts

were found to be sufficient by the learned Family Court for granting

the Appellant a decree of divorce dated 17^th November, 2001, after

considering the evidence adduced by both the parties.

4.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce dated 17^th

November, 2001, the Respondent wife had filed Miscellaneous First

Appeal No.171 of 2002 (FC), which has been allowed by the High

Court on 8^th March, 2006, whereby the decree of divorce dated 17^th

November, 2001 has been set aside. Being aggrieved by the judgment

and order passed by the High Court, the Appellant has filed this

appeal.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent was not

4

present when the appeal was called out for hearing. The matter was

kept back but for the whole day, the learned counsel for the

Respondent did not appear. Even on an earlier occasion on 31^st

March, 2016, when the appeal was called out, the learned counsel

appearing for the Respondent wife was not present and therefore, the

Court had