The High Court disposed of a divorce appeal by recalling a previous order. SET OWNED the appeal was dismissed as the High Court held the Family Court was justified in granting divorce due to the appellant’s cruelty, failure to maintain, and concealment of criminal antecedents including theft and jail time.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
MFA No.3564/2010(IDA)
BETWEEN:
KIRAN SHANTHAKUMAR S/O D. PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO. 3840, KARUNAPURA, N.R MOHALLA, MYSORE. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADV)
AND:
BEENANJALI W/O KIRAN SHANTHAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, C/O PRAKASH KAMAL KUMAR, R/AT NO.13, "A" BLOCK, JALAPURI POLICE QUARTERS, MYSORE.
...RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.55 OF THE INDIAN DIVORCE ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.02.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSORE IN M.C.NO.90/2008.
2
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, K.L.MANJUNATH.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
Being satisfied with the cause shown by the appellant, the order dated 30-09-2010 is recalled. With consent, the appeal is heard and disposed off by this order.
3. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder:
The appellant and respondent are Christians and their marriage was solemnized 26-05-1996 as per the customs prevailing in the Christian Community at Wesly Cathedral, Mysore.
3
4
antecedents, at the age of 41 years, the appellant married the respondent by concealing his conduct. Even after marriage he always treated her with utmost cruelty and he never used to earn and maintain the house. When she was pregnant, she was not even taken to a Doctor for medical check up. She was getting a meager salary of Rs.500/- p.m. Everyday, the appellant was harassing her and assaulting physically. When she was three months pregnant, the appellant was arrested and he was kept in judicial custody. Later she learnt that he was arrested and was in judicial custody because of theft of motorcycle. When the same was questioned by her, she was abused by the appellant and an attempt was also made to kill her by pressing a pillow on her face. He also insisted that for the sake of money, she was asked to sleep with a lorry owner. On account of his strained behavior, she filed a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It is her case that he had also married a Muslim lady and after marriage he
5
brought her home. A complaint was lodged by her with the Women Police on 28-1-2003. The Women Police summoned the appellant and an attempt made by the Women Police was also ended in vain. Therefore, she filed a petition for divorce.
6
(I) Whether the respondent has practiced cruelty on the petitioner, by subjecting her to both physical and mental cruelty, thereby he is guilty of matrimonial offence of cruelty and on that ground, whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce against him?
(II) Whether the petitioner further proves that, the respondent having deserted her, staying away from her, by withdrawing himself from her company and hence, she is entitled for a decree of divorce, on the ground of desertion?
7
erroneous and liable to be reversed.
we do not see any merit in this appeal. Admittedly, the appellant does not disclose his antecedents about his involvement in stealing the vehicles and the period spent by him in judicial custody. When the appellant has failed to maintain the respondent, when he was not willing to take respondent-wife to a Doctor when she was pregnant, when the appellant has deserted the respondent for no fault of her, when the appellant is living separately, this court is of the opinion that the Family Court is justified in granting a decree of divorce. As stated supra, the appellant had concealed his antecedents and had disclosed that he is habitual offender of committing theft of vehicles and has been sentenced and served in jail, no teacher of respondent’s caliber would have agreed to marry him and the conduct of the appellant will also have greater impact on the respondent and the place where she is working as a
8
teacher and the similar impact will also be there on the
minor child born to the parties herein.
appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
mpk/-*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court was justified in granting a decree of divorce based on cruelty and desertion by the appellant.
Whether the appellant concealed his antecedents including involvement in theft and jail terms prior to marriage.
Whether the conduct of the appellant negatively impacted the respondent and her minor child justifying dissolution of marriage.
KIRAN SHANTHAKUMAR
BEENANJALI
K.L.MANJUNATH
B.MANOHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
