Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 46 (KAR)

Mahantamma v. Shivukumar

2018-01-05

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, S.SUJATHA

body2018
JUDGMENT : John Michael Cunha, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hunagund ('the trial Court' for short) dated 07.12.2012 in M.C. No. 11/2011, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed. 3. The case of the appellant is that she married the respondent on 27.05.2004 at Sri Sangameshwar Temple of Hungund as per the Hindu customs and rituals. After marriage, she started residing with the respondent and lived with him for 6 years. They do not have any issues in their wedlock. The respondent is addicted to bad vices like, drinking alcohol; he has developed illicit relationship and he has been abusing her in filthy language and even assaulted her and caused physical and mental cruelty on her. On these grounds, the appellant sought for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce. 4. Even though the notice of the petition was served on the respondent, he did not chose to contest the petition. The appellant examined herself and also examined one of her neighbours before the trial Court and produced two documents in support of the grounds urged in the petition. Considering this evidence, the trial Court was of the view that the appellant has failed to substantiate the cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and consequently dismissed the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent having not chosen to contest the proceedings, the evidence of the petitioner has gone unchallenged and therefore, there was no reason or justification for the trial Court to disbelieve the evidence of the appellant. Further, he submits that the evidence of P.W. 1 namely the appellant has been duly corroborated by PW 2 and hence this evidence clearly makes out the ground under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. 6. We have considered the submissions and have perused the impugned order on the records of the proceedings. 7. On perusal of the averments made in the petition we find that the petitioner has made general and bald allegations in the petition. Except stating that six years after the marriage the respondent was addicted to vices and he started to ill-treat the petitioner/appellant, she has not pleaded any specific instance of cruelty. 7. On perusal of the averments made in the petition we find that the petitioner has made general and bald allegations in the petition. Except stating that six years after the marriage the respondent was addicted to vices and he started to ill-treat the petitioner/appellant, she has not pleaded any specific instance of cruelty. Even with regard to the illicit relationship alleged against the respondent, she is not specific in her evidence as to with whom the respondent is alleged to have been carrying on illicit relationship. By making such a unfounded and baseless allegation in our view the petitioner/appellant herself has inflicted mental cruelty on the respondent. Therefore, the evidence adduced by the petitioner in our view is not sufficient to hold that the respondent has committed any acts of physical or mental cruelty on the petitioner. On the other hand, the material on record indicates that after obtaining the D.Ed. qualification, the petitioner was employed as Teacher and since then she has been residing separately. Under the said circumstances, there was no occasion at all for the respondent to inflict either physical or mental cruelty on the respondent. The very address furnished in the cause title of the petition indicates that parties were residing separately as on the date of filing the petition. The petitioner has not made any specific averments as to when the parties were residing separately. All these circumstances therefore lead to the inevitable conclusion that false and baseless allegations have been against the respondent solely with a view to dissolve the marriage on the purported ground of cruelty. 8. The trial Court has considered all the above facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective and has come to the right conclusion that the acts alleged by the petitioner do not constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. On consideration of the grounds urged in the petition and the reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the petition, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order. We do not find any ground to admit the appeal. Consequently the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Appeal dismissed.