Chinnaswamy C. vs Smt. Manjula

Rathnakala, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi, on his file in M.C. No. 29/2009 dated 16.12.2011 whereby the divorce petition filed by the husband/appellant hereinunder Section 13(1)(i)(a) and (b)of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is dismissed.

Briefly stated, the appellant/husband filed a petition before the court below contending that, the parties are married as per their customs on 11.6.2011; it is an arranged marriage. After the marriage, the couple lived together in the house of the husband at Sanjeevanagar, Bhadravathi Taluk. They stayed together only for 20 days. There are no issues from the marriage. The wife for no reason used to abuse the husband, quarrelled with him and tortured him. With a fond hope that she would rectify herself, he was pulling on with her. She did not get along with his family members. Because of her ill-treatment, his parents� health deteriorated. Despite several requests to change her attitude, she did not heed. Because of her, his family was agonized. Three months after the marriage, without any information to him or his parents, she deserted the matrimonial home and started residing in her parents� house. On several occasions he requested her to join him. But she did not oblige and demanded divorce from him. She lodged a complaint against him with the Police. On that occasion, the Police called both of them to the station and advised them to resolve the dispute by mutual discussion. Thereafter, Panchayat was held and she expressed before the Panchayatdaars that she is not willing to lead marital life with him and demanded for divorce. In view of the adamant nature of the wife for the last five years, he is residing alone. As per the resolution of the Panchayatdaars, the petition for divorce by mutual consent was submitted to the Court. However, since she filed an application that she had no intention to get divorce, said petition came to be dismissed. She has not performed her matrimonial obligation and abandoned the matrimonial home, hence, prayed for divorce.

The petition was contested. Apart from denying the allegations levelled against her in the petition, the wife set up a defence that, some time after the marriage, the husband pestered her to get additional dowry amount from her parental home. In this regard, several Panchayats were held, but he did not rectify himself. Though she lodged a complaint with the Police, they did not take any action. He brought another woman to the house and threw her out of the matrimonial home; without any other go, she is residing with her parents. At the instance of his second wife, he put threat to her life, he obtained her signature on blank papers. As a dutiful wife, she was bearing with all his ill-deeds. She intends to lead marital life with him, if he changes his attitude.

After holding a full-fledged enquiry and after giving audience to both parties, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition.

Sri. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/husband submits that the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court was not from a proper perspective. It should be noted that, at no point of time, the wife had issued any notice to the husband nor did she file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. She has not made any effort to join him in the marital home, instead, she started neglecting the husband. The Trial Court dismissed his petition with the observation that he has not examined his parents and the witness has not supported his case, etc., but that was erroneous. Certain stray sentences are extracted by the Trial Court to come to untenable conclusion, thereby to dismiss the petition. Hence, the evidence placed on record before the Trial Court may be re-appreciated and marriage be dissolved by decree of divorce.

In reply, Sri. Samarth Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that, the husband, who was running a Tutorial Institution, married one of his students and started residing with her. Because of her, he tortured the wife and threw her out of matrimonial home. His second marriage with the other woman was established during trial before the Court. By appreciating the evidence placed by her, the petition came to be dismissed. Wife has no source of income. The appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court is proper and judicious and interference with the impugned judgment and decree is not called for.

In the light of the above rival submissions and also on perusal of the impugned judgment and the lower court record, it emerges that, the parties are married on 11.6.2011 as per the customs prevailing in their community. Though marriage is consummating, they have no issues from the marriage. The parties had a very short duration of happy married life. Before the Trial Court, the husband apart from examining himself as PW-1 examined a relative, who participated in one of the Panchayats as PW-2. According to his version, in the presence of the Panchayatdaars, the wife had agreed for divorce by mutual consent by accepting the permanent alimony of Rs. 1,30,000/- and had signed an agreement. By way of rebuttal evidence, the wife examined herself as RW-1 and a doctor, in whose Nursing Home, the alleged second wife of the husband delivered a female child, as RW-2 and also an official from the Town Municipality/RW-3, who produces Ex.R2/Birth Certificate of the child allegedly born to the husband through his relation with one Padma.

The learned Trial Judge during the course of his discussion drew inference that in the document produced from the Town Municipality/Ex.R3, the name of the father of the child was altered from Chinnaswamy to Chinnaswamy Goundar so as to overcome the evidence of the Doctor that one Padma, wife of Chinnaswamy had delivered a child in her Hospital on 2.8.2009 and accepted the contention of the wife that the husband married another woman and had a female issue from the said relationship and he did not rebut the'' said factor by his evidence. With this observation, the learned Trial Judge has held, because the husband brought another lady to the house, the wife is residing in her parental house and the husband is not entitled for any relief.

The Trial Court being the primary fact finding authority, on appreciation of the evidence and on the basis of documentary evidence Exs.R 1 to R3(a) has upheld the defence of the wife that, the husband himself has (brought another wife to the house and has a child from said relationship. On perusal of the evidence, we hold that the said observation is not perverse. The allegation of the husband that having given consent for divorce before Panchayatdars, subsequently, she withdrew the same is refuted by the wife. Her defence is, her husband by colluding with others had obtained her signature on blank stamp papers and misused the same to present the petition for consent divorce. On coming to know, she has withdrawn the same.

A careful scrutiny of the agreement-Ex.P4, the position of signatures on the document highly probabalises the defence contention that, her signature was obtained on blank paper and later said paper was misused. The husband has exhibited smartness to get prepared an agreement for divorce by consent much against the procedure made available for divorce by mutual consent. When there is sufficient evidence before the court that the husband is guilty of the matrimonial offence, rightly the Trial Judge has rejected to grant relief to him. The impugned judgment and decree since supported with sound reasoning, we do not propose to interfere with the same in this appeal.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

The appellant/husband is directed to pay litigation expenses, which is fixed at Rs. 5,000/-, to the wife/respondent within three weeks from today, otherwise, the wife is entitled to execute this order against him.