Dismissed

S. Naveen v. Supriya K.S. @ Nayana

Karnataka HC8 Mar 2022MFA/949/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two appeals filed by a husband challenging a divorce decree and an order dismissing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The court upheld the lower court's decision, finding the marriage dead due to established cruelty, incompatibility, and a seven-year separation.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; divorce decree and order dismissing restitution of conjugal rights petition upheld.

S. Naveen Vs Supriya K.S. @ Nayana — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

M.F.A.No.948/2019 C/W

¶9

M.F.A.No.949/2019

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

S NAVEEN S/O LATE SREENIVAS AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.5/5, D.X. MAX APARTMENTS, NEAR REDDY JAN SANGHA SCHOOL, RUPENA AGARAHARA, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 068.

¶12

… APPELLANT (Common)

¶13

(By Smt. Jayalakshmi.K.B., Adv. for Sri Sanathkumar Shetty.K., Adv.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SUPRIYA ALIAS NAYANA W/O S. NAVEEN D/O K.C. SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, C/O K.C. SUBBAIAH KIBETTA VILLAGE, SOMAWARPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT 571 236. … RESPONDENT (Common)

¶16

(By Sri B.L.Sanjeev, Adv.)

¶17

¶18

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.948/2019 is filed under Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2019, passed in M.C. No.74/2016, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Somawarapete, partly allowing the petition filed u/sec.13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶19

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.949/2019 is filed under Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2019, passed in M.C. No.9/2017, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Somawarapete, dismissing the petition filed u/sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶20

These appeals coming on for Final Hearing, this day, Vishwajith Shetty J., delivered the following:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

These two appeals are filed by the husband challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Somawarapete, in M.C.Nos.74/2016 & 9/2017.

¶23

M.C.No.74/2016 was filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), to dissolve her marriage solemnized with the appellant-respondent on 28.05.2015 by a decree of divorce and also to award permanent alimony, while M.C.No.9/2017 was filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Act seeking a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

¶24

¶25

The undisputed facts of the case are, the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 28.05.2015 at Vokkaligara Kalyana Manatapa, Somwarapete, Kodagu District. The respondent is the daughter of the paternal aunt of the appellant. After their marriage, the appellant and respondent lived happily for about four to five months, and thereafter, they developed some misunderstanding and ever since then they have been residing separately.

¶26

The wife had filed the petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, contending that after the marriage, she was being tortured in her matrimonial house by her mother-in-law. She was being insulted on the ground that the marriage function was not properly conducted and that enough gold and silver was not given at the time of marriage by her parents. It was also contended by her that she was sent to her parents house by her mother-in-law in the month of June 2015, and thereafter, her husband did not come to take her back and only in the month of September 2015, she returned back to the matrimonial house with her father, but

¶27

¶28

even thereafter, she was continuously ill-treated by her husband and mother-in-law. Subsequently, on 16.09.2015, she was taken back to her parents house by her husband and while returning back, her husband insulted her parents by stating that her mother had a cheap mentality. It was also contended that her mother-in-law was suspecting her character. It has been further contended that during the month of October 2015, she was not well, but her husband and mother-in-law did not take care of her and number of attempts made by her and her parents to solve the problem were all in vain. She has also stated that since she found it totally impossible to live with the husband, she was constrained to leave his company and reside with her parents. At this stage, the husband had filed a habeas corpus writ petition before the High Court and on the basis of the statement made by the wife before this Court, the habeas corpus petition was dismissed.

¶29

The husband had filed his statement of objections to the petition filed by the wife admitting the relationship. He contended that inspite of the efforts made in the panchayath, the wife had refused to join him. He also stated that his wife

¶30

¶31

and in-laws were economically strong, and therefore, she was not entitled for any alimony.

¶32

In the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the husband had contended that the wife had deserted him without there being any sufficient cause. He had stated that his wife had gone to parents house for Vijayadashami festival, and thereafter, did not return back. Even though the wife was advised in the panchayath to join her husband, she did not oblige and deliberately she had remained away from him, and therefore, he issued a legal notice dated 16.05.2016 calling upon her to join him and the said notice was returned unserved, and therefore, he had filed a habeas corpus petition before this Court. Subsequently, he had yet again issued a legal notice calling her to join him, but she had issued a reply refusing to join him, and therefore, he had filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶33

The wife had filed objections to the same denying all the allegations and contended that she had valid reason to stay away from her husband and she found it impossible to

¶34

¶35

live with him having regard to the mental and physical torture meted out on her.

¶36

The Family Court clubbed both the cases, and thereafter, recorded common evidence in both the cases. The wife was examined as PW-1 and in support of her case, 19 documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-19. The husband was examined as RW-1 and in support of his case, he got marked 21 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-21. The Family Court, thereafter, heard the arguments on both the sides and vide the impugned judgment, allowed the petition filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act for divorce and dismissed the petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. Being aggrieved by the same, the husband has preferred these two appeals.

¶37

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellanthusband as well as the learned Counsel for the respondentwife.

¶38

It is not in dispute that after the marriage, the respondent-wife lived happily under a single roof only for a period of four to five months. Though the parties are closely

¶39

¶40

related, the efforts made by the elders and well-wishers of both the parties to settle the dispute between the parties failed, and ultimately, the parties had approached the Family Court by filing a divorce petition and also a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶41

The Family Court, after appreciating the entire material on record, having found that the wife was not willing to join the husband and she had clearly stated during the course of her evidence that she was well educated and she did not want any maintenance amount from her husband and even if she was asked to join her husband, she will not join him and in such circumstances, she would rather prefer to die. The parties are living separately for more than seven years. The material on record would go to show that the marriage between the parties is dead. The Family Court, having appreciated this aspect of the matter, has allowed the petition seeking divorce filed by the wife and dismissed the petition filled by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Even during the pendency of the appeals before this Court, the parties were referred to Mediation Centre and all efforts made for conciliation and settlement has failed. When continuation

¶42

¶43

of marriage will not serve any purpose and it would rather be detrimental to the interest of parties, then such a marriage is required to be dissolved with a view to do complete justice to the parties.

¶44

The very purpose of marriage is to hold matrimonial

¶45

ties during the life time of the couple, respecting their mutual rights and obligations which are required to be performed by both the parties. A marriage would survive only in the event the couple respect each other, perform their mutual obligations and understand each other. The material on record would go to show that there has been misunderstanding between the parties right from the beginning even though they are closely related. The wife has pointed out that she was ill-treated by her husband and mother-in-law and it is her specific case that her husband used to listen to the words of his mother and accordingly illtreat her. The petitioner-wife has narrated various incidents of cruelty meted out on her by the respondent and his family members. This would be suffice to prove the cruelty against the respondent. Even the husband has stated that the status of his wife and family is much higher, and therefore, she is

¶46

¶47

not able to lead life with him, and there has been no compatibility between the parties. Incompatibility is a factor that can be reckoned while considering the ground of cruelty having regard to the nature of material evidence available on record. The wife has clearly stated that she is no more interested in the marriage and she does not want any maintenance amount from her husband, much less any permanent alimony. She has gone to the extent of stating that she would rather die than living with her husband. The Family Court having appreciated all these aspects of the matter and having found that there is no purpose in continuing the marriage, has rightly allowed the petition filed by the wife for divorce and dismissed the petition filed by the husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

¶48

The parties are very young and they have been living separately for the last nearly seven years and admittedly, they have no issues from the wedlock, and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court is legally sound and does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Under the circumstances, both

¶49

¶50

the appeals filed by the husband has to fail, and accordingly,

¶51

the same are dismissed.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

S. Naveen v. Supriya K.S. @ Nayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Naveen v. Supriya K.S. @ Nayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Akklappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Jain Trust Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner

Committee of Management Vs Sri Prathviraj Ajila

Ms. Simki Mehta Vs Union of India

G.K. Yalloji Vs Office of Tahasildar and

Smt Shilpa K H Vs State by Yeshwanthpura Sub-Division