IMPORTANT POINT
Unsubstantiated allegations levelled by wife and threats and attempt to commit suicide by her amounts to mental cruelty.

JUDGMENT :

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 8th 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 judgment and decree dated 17th 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 26th February, 1992. Out of the wedlock, a female child named Ranjitha was born on 13th 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 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 2nd 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 17th November, 2001, after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce dated 17th November, 2001, the Respondent wife had filed Miscellaneous First Appeal No.171 of 2002 (FC), which has been allowed by the High Court on 8th March, 2006, whereby the decree of divorce dated 17th 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 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 31st March, 2016, when the appeal was called out, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent wife was not present and therefore, the Court had heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the High Court had committed a grave error in the process of re-appreciating the evidence and by setting aside the decree of divorce granted in favour of the Appellant. He submitted that there was no reason to believe that there was no cruelty on the part of the Respondent wife. He highlighted the observati