Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 499 (KAR)

B. S. Ravi Shankar v. Leelavathi

2023-03-24

ALOK ARADHE, VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. This appeal under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 6/10/2016 passed in M.C.No.3502/2012 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, by which the petition filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage, was dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 16/3/2011 as per Hindu rites and customs at Pooja Sri Convention Hall, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore. 3. It is pleaded that respondent suffers from superiority complex as she was a graduate, and the appellant was a matriculate. It is averred that the respondent used to condemn, ridicule and humiliate the appellant in various fashions. During the initial days it was within the four walls, subsequently the respondent started harassing in front of others and disrespected to appellant everyday. It is further pleaded that respondent used to involve his married sister, while harassing the appellant. 4. It is averred that respondent used to call the appellant as a womanizer, drunkard and she did not respect the appellant's parents. It is also pleaded that respondent used to suspect the character of appellant, and also demanded for partition of family property. The respondent was in the habit of creating a scene by going out of the house shouting, attracting people and she used to falsely state that there is demand of dowry. 5. It is further averred that respondent left matrimonial home in the second week of February 2012, hence the appellant filed police complaint and with the intervention of the well wishers she re-joined the matrimonial home. It is also averred that she underwent major surgery without disclosing to the appellant and on 31/8/2012, the respondent picked up quarrel and lodged false complaint against the appellant and his family members, hence the police had forcibly detained the appellant, which has caused mental cruelty to the appellant. 6. The respondent filed statement of objections wherein she has admitted the factum of marriage, however, she has specifically denied the allegations of cruelty. It is pleaded that she has taken care of the entire family and never disrespected them and it is the appellant's brother, who used to abuse her without any reason and never allowed her to visit her parents house. It is pleaded that she has taken care of the entire family and never disrespected them and it is the appellant's brother, who used to abuse her without any reason and never allowed her to visit her parents house. It is further pleaded that appellant's family members have treated the respondent inhumanely, by not providing proper food and clothing. The appellant's family have also demanded dowry from the father of the respondent. It also pleaded that in second week of February 2012 the respondent was not keeping well and the mother of the appellant forced her to wash clothes and when she expressed her inability, the mother of the appellant had called wife's parents and abused them in filthy language. It is averred that on 5/3/2012 a panchayat was held and she went back to the matrimonial home, however, the appellant and his family members have assaulted her and she became unconscious and thereafter took treatment in Ashraya hospital. It is further averred that the respondent was suffering from stomach pain, hence she was required to undergo surgery and thereafter she joined the matrimonial home. The appellant and his family members compelled the respondent to do hard work and did not allow her to take rest. They insisted and pressurized the respondent to sign divorce papers. She could not resist, hence she shouted for help and immediately a Hoysala Jeep on patrolling came and took the respondent to the Police station. The appellant has given statement that he would take care of the respondent. However the appellant has not stopped harassing the respondent, thus she has left the matrimonial house. 7. The Family Court recorded evidence of the parties. The appellant examined himself as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and produced Exs.P1 to P7. The respondent examined herself as RW.1 and produced Exs.R1 and R2. The Family Court inter alia held that appellant has failed to prove the ground of cruelty. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual matrix the present appeal has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. It is submitted that respondent was having superiority complex, never used to respect the appellant and his family members and she had a habit of quarrelling with the appellant. In the aforesaid factual matrix the present appeal has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. It is submitted that respondent was having superiority complex, never used to respect the appellant and his family members and she had a habit of quarrelling with the appellant. It is further submitted that on 5/3/2012 the appellant had lodged the complaint against the respondent as she was demanding partition in the properties. It is also submitted that respondent has lodged the complaint against the appellant and police have detained the appellant, which has caused humiliation and cruelty. These aspects have not been properly appreciated by the Family Court, which has resulted in dismissal of the petition. It is submitted that the parties are residing separately. 9. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the records. The respondent has entered appearance through the learned counsel, however he remained absent. 10. The appellant has averred that respondent was suffering from superiority complex as she is a graduate, she used to disrespect the appellant and his family members and also that she was suffering from ailments prior to the marriage and the same was not disclosed to the appellant. She used to quarrel by suspecting his character and alleging that he is drunkard. The appellant has examined himself as PW1 and on careful scrutiny of his deposition, it is evident that the same is reiteration of the petition averments. The aforesaid allegations are denied by the respondent in her evidence. There are no specific instances of humiliation, quarrel or using abusive language against the appellant in the pleading, nor stated in the evidence. The evidence of PW1 is self serving testimony and no independent witness or family members have been examined to substantiate the aforesaid assertions of cruelty. 11. The Family Court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of PW1 and we do not find any error in the said finding. The appellant has asserted that respondent was suffering from various ailments, the same is not substantiated by producing medical report of the doctor. The appellant has further alleged that respondent was demanding for partition of the joint family property, hence he had filed police complaint, Ex.P4 stating that he was assaulted by the respondent's family members. The appellant has asserted that respondent was suffering from various ailments, the same is not substantiated by producing medical report of the doctor. The appellant has further alleged that respondent was demanding for partition of the joint family property, hence he had filed police complaint, Ex.P4 stating that he was assaulted by the respondent's family members. On the contrary, respondent filed police complaint at Ex.P5 stating that she was harassed and assaulted by the appellant and his family members. On careful examination of oral testimony of PW.1 and Ex.P4, it is not evident that respondent has caused cruelty on the appellant. On further examination of evidence of RW.1, it is evident that it is the appellant, who had assaulted the respondent and she was treated at Ashraya Medinova Private Limited. On perusal of evidence of PW.2 he admits that he has deposed before the Family Court the information given by the appellant and he has no personal knowledge about the quarrel and behaviour of the respondent. The Family Court has rightly held that PW2 is not helpful for the present case. 12. The alleged grounds of cruelty pleaded before the Family Court are vague and neither any specific instances of cruelty have been pleaded nor the same have been substantiated by cogent and corroborative evidence. Therefore the appellant has failed to prove the grounds of cruelty. 13. The Family Court has recorded a finding that appellant has failed to prove the ground for dissolution of marriage i.e, cruelty. These findings do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.