Aruna Jyothi vs Ravi Kumar

Budihal R.B., J.—This appeal is preferred by the appellant-wife against the respondent-husband aggrieved by the judgment of the Family Court, Gulbarga dated 30.10.2009 and she has challenged the correctness of the judgment on the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum.

The respondent-husband filed the Matrimonial Case before the Family Court under Section 13(1-A) read with Section 13(1)(i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The brief facts of the case of the respondent-husband before the Family Court are that the marriage of the couples was solemnized on 15.06.2003 at Tandoor in Andhra Pradesh. In the wedlock a female child by name Shreya born who was in the custody of the mother. It is alleged by the husband that right from the beginning of the marriage life, his wife was in the habit of leaving matrimonial home and frequently used to go to her parents'' house. She was working in the Postal Department at Shahabad Post Office. She used to go to her parents'' house invariably and she was not showing any respect to him and was not showing any love and affection, inspite of the advise of the elders and well wishers. She was not ready to lead the happy marital life. She was picking up quarrel with the husband for small and silly matters and making false allegations against him. He has also alleged that on 16.05.2005 without informing the husband, she left the house and taken away the valuable articles.

The wife appeared in the proceedings and filed her objection statement denying all the allegations made in the petition and she contended that it is the husband who was treating her with cruelty and he was addicted to the habit of drinking alcohol and on 16.05.2005 at 11.00 PM he returned to the home in intoxication condition and beat her mercilessly on the ground that why she has not brought the cash from her parents and drove her out of the house. She has taken treatment for the injuries sustained. She denied that she herself left the matrimonial home.

On the basis of the said pleadings, the Family Court recorded the evidence of both sides and ultimately after considering oral as well as the documentary evidence, allowed the petition on the ground that the appellant-wife deserted the respondent-husband and granted a decree to dissolve the marriage between the couples.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent-husband. Perusing the materials they goes to show that earlier the husband filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in MC No. 111/2005. The same was dismissed by the Family Court on 15.12.2006. The husband preferred an appeal before the High Court in MFA No. 586/2007. The same was allowed on 04.07.2007 by setting aside the judgment of the Family Court. It is the case of the respondent-husband herein that after the passing of the said decree for restitution of conjugal rights also he made his efforts to take his wife back and number of times he has issued the notice requesting her to come and join the respondent-husband. But purposely she avoided to receive the said notices and respondent-husband has produced the documents in that regard before the Family Court. It is also his contention that the wife is not interested to join the company of the husband inspite of the decree passed by the Court directing her to give the social company to the respondent-husband herein.

Whereas it is the contention of the appellant-wife that she made her efforts to go and join the husband but when she visited his residence he has changed the address and let out the house at rental basis to others. Then she also visited the office of the respondent-husband on 15th and 17th July 2007. But he was not available in his office. But during the course of cross-examination, she admitted that on those two dates she was on duty, but however she has stated by taking permission from her superiors she left the office and went to the office of the husband. But the said contention is not supported by any acceptable material.

Looking to the observations made by the Family Court that as she was serving in the Postal Department, and whenever the notices were issued by the husband, smelting the same, she used to apply the leave. Therefore, the Family Court observed that, in all probability, her conduct goes to show that she was avoiding the service of notice on her and for that reason she used to apply for leave. We have also perused the decision relied and referred by the Family Court in its judgment reported in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani Vs. Meena alias Mota, . Looking to these materials on record, they clearly goes to show that the Family Court, Gulbarga taken into consideration each and every aspect of the matter, both oral and documentary and rightly comes to the conclusion in allowing the petition filed by the husband and dissolving the marriage between the couples. The materials goes to show that even by this Court also matter was referred to the mediation centre, but the same was failed and even today also both the couples are present before the Court, but the counsel on both sides made the submission that there is no possibility of reconciliation. We are of the view that there is no illegality committed by the Family Court nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken in coming to such conclusion. Therefore, there are no justifiable and valid grounds for us to interfere into the matter in this appeal so as to reverse the findings of the Family Court. No merit in the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.