Smt. Radha M.S., Lecturer, Department of Sociology, Mahajana College vs Dr. Krishna Murthy, Chairman, Department of Geography, Manasagangothri University of Mysore

Ravi Malimath, J.—The parties were married on 29.8.2003 at Mysore. After the marriage, the wife joined the husband and resided with him. Initially she was behaving properly. But within a few days he observed a strange character. According to the husband, she was over possessive and fickle minded. He came to know that she was mentally ill, embarrassing and suffering from serious mental disorder. Her character inside the house and outside was abnormal and because of the same she caused mental tension and agony to him. It is further case of the husband that the wife would treat him with cruelty. A number of instances were narrated by him wherein behaviour of the wife was made known; that the wife was objecting the respondent husband to meet his daughter from first the wife and other relatives and friends; that she has even gone to the extent of coming to the work place of the respondent and causing galata; that complaint was lodged not only by him but also his colleagues in the office along with several other complaints lodged by him. Ever since 2005 they have been living separately. In the circumstances, he filed a petition u/s 13(1)(a) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"), seeking divorce against the wife. The family Court by the impugned order by exercise of its powers u/s 13-A of the Act granted a decree for judicial separation. Hence, the present appeal by the wife.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order is bad in law and requires to be set aside. That there is no material established by respondent-husband to sustain the impugned order. That the husband has failed to establish his case. That the order passed by the Family court granting judicial separation is wholly incorrect. The evidence is contrary to the findings recorded by the Court.

On the other hand, respondent''s counsel justifying the impugned order contends that the material evidence has been considered; that even though the court was of the view that the ground for mental disorder in terms of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act is not established, it was of the view that a case of cruelty has been made out and hence granted judicial separation u/s 13A of the Act. The view expressed by the Family court in granting judicial separation is based on the facts of the case. Hence he pleads that the case be dismissed.

Heard learned counsels and examined the records.

In support of his case, the husband examined himself and one Prasanna Kumar and the wife examined herself. 14 documents were marked on behalf of husband and 4 documents on behalf of the wife. During the Pendency of the proceedings before Family Court, the husband by the order dated 10.8.2005 obtained an order of temporary injunction against the wife restraining her from picking up a quarrel with him in his office and also interfering in the discharge of his duties and directing the wife not to visit the work place and not to create any scene by picking up a quarrel with him. This was preceded by the fact that the wife had barged into the office of the husband, abused him in the presence of his colleagues and students and created nuisance by damaging computers and other office furniture. The matter was reported to the Registrar, Mysore University regarding the incident and the same was supported by various colleagues of the husband including the female colleagues. Details of several incidents of the wife following the husband to various places and creating nuisance were also reported. During the cross examination, the wife has denied the allegations except stating that husband has filed a number of cases against her.

In the cross examination she has further stated that she has not quarreled with her husband and that quarrels which her husband is complaining of are a normal wear and tear of the family. Considering the material on record, the family Court was of the view that though the petitioner has made out a case for divorce, he has failed to establish that she was suffering from a mental disorder since there is no material produced to establish the same. Therefore the allegation has not been substantiated by any material and evidence in support of the same. However, insofar as the ground of crudity alleged by the husband against wife is concerned, the Family Court held that the husband has proved the said allegation by producing substantial enough material on record. Hence, in exercise of its power u/s 13-A of the Act and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court instead of granting a decree of divorce granted a decree of judicial separation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the material on record, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Family court is just and reasonable. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with it. Even otherwise, the husband is presently aged about 63 years and has retired from service; that they are living separately ever since 2005; that in spite of efforts made, there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties. Evidence is let in by the husband to support the case of cruelty meted out against him. In the circumstances, trial Court was of the view that it is not a fit case to grant divorce but in the alternative to grant a decree of judicial separation. We are of the considered view that the Family Court has rightly exercised the discretion while granting the order of judicial separation. There is no error in the impugned judgment and decree which calls for interference. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.