Ganesh Naik B vs Deepa R

Umesh M Adiga, J

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2023, passed in M.C.No.116/2023, on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga, (for short, `Family Court’), by the petitioner.

For the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as per their ranks before the Family Court.

The appellant/petitioner filed petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking decree for divorce. In the petition, he stated that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 13.12.2019 at Agrahara Tanda of Kadur Taluk, in accordance with Hindu customs and rituals; It was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, at Kadur on 10.02.2020; They lived together in his house at Shivamogga till 17.01.2020; During the said period, respondent was harassing him and treating him cruelly; He tolerated the said harassment for some time; Thereafter, due to intolerable harassment, he could not continue his marital relationship with respondent. Their marriage was not consummated; On 17.01.2020, respondent deserted him and started residing permanently in her parents’ house; In spite of his repeated requests, she did not return to his house to lead marital life. Therefore, he prayed for grant of decree of divorce.

The respondent-wife admitted their relationship. According to her case, petitioner-husband was ill-treating her and harassing her for the sake of dowry; The elders of the family and her parents tried to settle the dispute, however, it went in vein; The respondent was looking after him properly and she has all love and affection towards him, but the petitioner has no love and affection towards her; It was his third marriage with the respondent; He had divorced his previous two wives; Suppressing his earlier two marriages from her and her parents, he married her; The petitioner has a habit of marrying and divorcing within a short period; There are no justifiable reasons for seeking divorce from the petitioner; She has not deserted the petitioner and on the contrary, he only sent her out from his house, with a direction to bring dowry from her parents. With these reasons, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Both parties led their evidence before the Family Court. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. The respondent examined herself as RW-1.

The learned trial Judge after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the petition by the impugned judgment.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials placed on record.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant proved the ill-treatment and harassment meted to him by the respondent-wife. But the Family Court did not appreciate the evidence properly. The respondent admittedly left the company of the appellant on 17.01.2020 and thereafter, did not return back to his house to lead the marital life. The petitioner filed this petition after a period of two years of desertion by the respondent. That fact was not considered by the Family Court. Therefore, the findings of the Family Court is erroneous and interference by this Court is required. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

On perusal of the records, it is seen that there are inconsistencies in respect of date of marriage in the petition, as well as in the evidence. However, it is not in dispute that their marriage was solemnized on 13.12.2019. Ex.P-1 – marriage invitation card shows that marriage was held on 13.12.2019. Therefore, there is no need to give much importance to the mistake in date of marriage stated by the appellant in the petition, as well as in the evidence of PW-1.

In the petition, as well as in the evidence, petitioner stated that respondent developed hostile attitude towards him and started ill-treating him. The respondent was addicted to all the bad habits and she was manhandling him for silly reasons. She was careless towards him and she left his company on 17.01.2020 and thereafter, never returned to her matrimonial home. With these reasons, he prayed for granting the decree of divorce.

In his cross-examination, the respondent was able to show that he was not deposing true facts before the Court. He admitted in his cross-examination that he lived with the respondent in his house at Shivamogga for one and half months, thereafter he stayed with the respondent in Shikaripura for about 20 days and from Shikaripura, again they came back to Shivamogga and stayed together for 20 days. According to the said admissions, for nearly 85 to 90 days, both of them resided together. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that respondent deserted him from 17.01.2020 appears to be incorrect.

In his further cross-examination, it was suggested to him that parents of the respondent tried their level best to settle the dispute between them, however, due to his adamant behavior, he did not settle the dispute. He also denied suggestions that he has a habit of marrying and divorcing them within a short period of marriage. He admitted that he married thrice, including the respondent and he had divorced his previous two wives. Therefore, the contention of the respondent before the Family Court that petitioner was having the bad habit of marrying and divorcing within a short period is probable. He is playing with the life of women by abusing the process of law.

Before the Family Court, it was contended by the respondent that she filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance and because of the same, he filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights and thereafter, this divorce petition. The fact of filing of cases were in dispute. The contentions of respondent is probable. Appellant had filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. When the Family Court granted the relief and granted two months time to the respondent to join the appellant, she did not join according to the contention of the appellant. Then he should have filed an execution petition to execute the said order. Instead of that, he has filed present divorce petition within a short period from the date of disposal of petition filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. This fact also shows that petition filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was not a bona fide petition. Just to avoid his liability to pay maintenance, said petition appears to have been filed.

From the records, it appears that both petitioner and respondent have hardly lived for three to four months together and led matrimonial life. The appellant was unable to prove that respondent was treating him cruelly and made it impossible to live with her. Legally no valid grounds are made out, except saying that she was cruelly treating him. The vague averments cannot be a ground for dissolving of a sacred relationship between husband and wife.

The learned trial Judge in detail considered the case of both the parties and rightly dismissed the petition. There are no grounds to interfere in the said findings.

It appears, the respondent filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming for maintenance. Since respondent remained absent in this case, it is not clear as to whether any maintenance was awarded in the said case. There are no merits in the grounds of appeal. Hence, appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs.

For the aforesaid discussion, we proceed to pass the following :

ORDER

The Appeal is dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent.

The impugned judgment and decree dated 02.12.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. Shivamogga, in M.C.No.116/2023, is confirmed.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order along with records to the concerned Family Court without delay.