Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1663 (KAR)

K. Raghavendra v. Roopa @ K Shanti

2020-09-02

P.S.DINESH KUMAR, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2020
JUDGMENT S Vishwajith Shetty, J. - This appeal is filed by the petitioner-husband in M.C.No.69 of 2018 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 13.08.2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari. 2. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 13.08.2017 at K.E.B. Engineering Function Hall, behind BUDA office, Mothi Circle, Ballari as per the Hindu rites, customs and traditions. It is the case of the appellant that from the initial days of the marriage itself, his wife was picking up unnecessary quarrel with him and she was suspecting him of having illegal relationship with the others. It is his further case that his wife was not respecting him and his family members. Once his wife had assaulted his mother and sister with chappal and as a result, a complaint was filed before the A.P.M.C. Police Station and the police had advised his wife not to repeat such acts. Subsequently, when he was suspended from his job on the allegation of misappropriation, the wife left his company and went to her parents' house. Thereafterwards, he went to her house and after negotiations brought her back. But the wife stayed with him only for two days and once again picked up quarrel with him in public and left his company. 3. After some days she came to his house along with about 10 men and assaulted him and his family members. A police complaint was filed and it was registered as Crime No.79 of 2018 in Ballari Rural Police Station. As a counter to this complaint, wife filed a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Ballari and a case in Crime No.25 of 2018 was registered against the appellant and his family members for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As a result of these acts, he and his family members had to face serious hardship and embarrassment. He has contended that the acts and adamant attitude of the wife caused him untold hardship amounting to both physical and mental cruelty. Therefore, the appellant had filed petition under Section 13(1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari in M.C.No.69 of 2018 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 4. Therefore, the appellant had filed petition under Section 13(1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari in M.C.No.69 of 2018 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 4. Inspite of service of notice respondent/wife remained absent before the Family Court and therefore she was placed ex-parte. During the course of trial, appellant got examined himself as P.W.1 and marked as many as 08 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 in support of his case. He examined P.W.2- Venkateshulu who is his uncle and P.W.3- B.Govindappa who is his neighbor. However, learned Judge of the Family Court by means of the impugned Judgment and Decree has dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the material evidence available on record. The respondent is served and unrepresented. 6. The averments made by the appellant in this petition were reiterated by him during the course of his examination-in-chief. In support of his case, 08 documents have been marked including the copy of the police complaint. P.W.2 and 3 who have been examined on behalf of the appellant have also supported his case. The respondent/wife has not chosen to appear before the Court and to file her defence. The allegations of cruelty made by the appellant in his petition remain un-controverted. Similarly the oral evidence of the witnesses P.W.1 to 3 has also remained unchallenged. The allegations made against the wife in our considered view amounts to cruelty. Cruelty could be in the form of physical or mental torture. In the case on hand several alleged acts of the wife would definitely amount to mental torture. In addition to the same, the wife who is staying separately has not chosen to appear before the Court and give any valid reasons for leaving the company of the appellant. There are allegations against wife assaulting appellant and his family members which are substantiated by producing the police complaint. 7. In the circumstances, we are of the view that, the learned Judge of the Family Court was not justified in dismissing the petition having regard to the available oral and documentary evidence on record, which have remained un-controverted. There are allegations against wife assaulting appellant and his family members which are substantiated by producing the police complaint. 7. In the circumstances, we are of the view that, the learned Judge of the Family Court was not justified in dismissing the petition having regard to the available oral and documentary evidence on record, which have remained un-controverted. Hence, the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ballari cannot be sustained and therefore this appeal deserved to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed. The marriage of the appellant- Sri.K.Raghavendra with the respondent- Smt.Roopa @ K.Shanti solemnized on 13.08.2017 at K.E.B. Engineering Function Hall, Behind Buda office, Mothi Circle, Ballari stands dissolved. No order as to costs.