Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 334 (KAR)

M. Geetha v. B. A. Bheemaraj

2022-03-08

ALOK ARADHE, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2022
JUDGMENT VISHWAJITH SHETTY J. - This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the wife challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 5/9/2017 passed by the IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C.No.3854/2013, wherein the petition filed by the husband under Sec. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the marriage of the appellant-wife with the respondent-husband was solemnized on 27/11/1986 at Bengaluru and from the said wedlock, two children by name Eshwar Prasad and Vishal were born to the couple. The husband and wife were both employed. They lived as husband and wife till the year 2000 and for the last more than 20 years, they have been residing separately. 3. The husband filed petition under Sec. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act, with a prayer to dissolve the marriage solemnized on 27/11/1986, contending that ever since the marriage, his wife was always quarrelling with him and his family members and was insisting him to set up a separate residence and stay away from his parents. Therefore, he was compelled to purchase a house in the year 1991 and only for a short period the couple lived in the said house along with their children. The wife allegedly left the company of the petitioner-husband abruptly on 3/12/2020 along with her household articles. It is also averred that thereafter, she filed a false criminal case against the petitioner and his family members for the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC and the petitioner and his family members were tried for the alleged offence in C.C.No.20040/2003 before the jurisdictional Magistrate and ultimately, they were acquitted. It is also averred that thereafter she filed a false criminal complaint alleging that the petitioner-husband had forged her signature in her cheque leaves and even the said case was subsequently dismissed. The respondent-wife had also filed O.S.No.87/2001 seeking maintenance from the petitioner though she was working as a Headmistress in a Government Aided School and the maintenance awarded in the said suit was being paid by him regularly. Subsequently, the respondent-wife who had voluntarily deserted the petitioner also had filed a petition under Sec. 9 of the Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the said petition was dismissed after contest on 3/4/2013. 4. Subsequently, the respondent-wife who had voluntarily deserted the petitioner also had filed a petition under Sec. 9 of the Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the said petition was dismissed after contest on 3/4/2013. 4. The respondent-wife had entered appearance before the Family Court and filed her statement of objections admitting the relationship, but had denied the rest of the allegations made against her by her husband. She had contended that inspite of there being a decree for maintenance, the husband was not regular in paying the maintenance amount. She also contended that since she intended to join his company, she had filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and she had given hostile evidence in the criminal cases filed by her. Though the petitioner had assured that he would join her company after disposal of the criminal cases, he has not taken her back. She has also stated that the children are in need of love and affection of the parents and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, he had examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-18. The respondent-wife got herself examined as RW-1. However, no documents were marked in support of her defence. The Family Court, thereafter, heard the arguments on both the sides and vide the impugned judgment, allowed the petition dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-wife has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Family Court erred in allowing the petition and granting a decree of divorce. He submits that the wife had earlier filed petition under Sec. 9 of the Act, which would go to show that she was always intending to lead a normal family life with the petitioner, but it is the petitioner who was always fighting with her. It is also submitted that the criminal cases filed by the respondent-wife were not effectively prosecuted by her on the assurance that the husband would be taking her back. But thereafter, he has not kept up to his promise and the Family Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in allowing the petition. 7. It is also submitted that the criminal cases filed by the respondent-wife were not effectively prosecuted by her on the assurance that the husband would be taking her back. But thereafter, he has not kept up to his promise and the Family Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in allowing the petition. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-husband has submitted that the parties are living separately for the last more than two decades and the children are admittedly settled abroad. She also submitted that there is no purpose in continuing the marriage when the parties have no respect to each other and they are not in a position to live a cordial life. She submits that the Family Court, having appreciated that the wife was in the habit of filing false cases against the husband and his relatives, has rightly allowed the petition and the said order does not call for any interference, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have carefully appreciated the arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and also perused the material available on record. 9. Petitioner-husband has examined himself as PW-1 in support of his case and he has got marked as many as 18 documents. He has narrated in detail about the various cases including the criminal cases filed by the wife in order to harass him and his family. The copies of the order sheet, the deposition and judgment in various such proceedings have been produced and marked to substantiate his case before the Family Court. The Family Court, having appreciated that the wife has repeatedly filed criminal cases against the petitioner-husband, has held that the said conduct of the wife would clearly amount to cruelty. The Family Court has also appreciated the fact that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife was dismissed earlier on the ground that she herself had deserted the company of her husband without there being any valid reasons. Therefore, the ground of cruelty as well as desertion was proved by the husband before the Family Court by producing oral and documentary evidence and the Family Court having appreciated the same, has rightly allowed the petition filed by him for dissolution of marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce. 10. Therefore, the ground of cruelty as well as desertion was proved by the husband before the Family Court by producing oral and documentary evidence and the Family Court having appreciated the same, has rightly allowed the petition filed by him for dissolution of marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce. 10. It is also not in dispute that the couple have been living separately for the last more than 20 years and their children have now completed their studies and settled abroad. The marriage between the parties is virtually dead and the material evidence available on record would go to show that they have been fighting against each other before various courts for the last more than two decades. At this juncture, no purpose would be served in keeping the marriage alive. The efforts made for conciliation of the parties before the Family Court as well as before this Court have all failed and the parties have failed to arrive at an amicable settlement. 11. The learned Judge of the Family Court having appreciated the material evidence available on record has held that the petitioner has proved the ground of cruelty as well as desertion as against the respondent and has accordingly allowed the petition. We find no illegality or irregularity in the said judgment passed by the Family Court, and therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.