Dismissed

Smt. B.M.Suma v. M.B.Chandrappa

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2023MFA/2061/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of two miscellaneous first appeals challenging a divorce decree and a dismissal of a restitution of conjugal rights petition. The court held that filing a false criminal complaint against the husband and family constituted cruelty, confirming the lower court's grant of divorce and dismissal of the restitution petition.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act were dismissed, confirming the divorce decree and dismissal of the restitution of conjugal rights petition.

Smt. B.M.Suma Vs M.B.Chandrappa — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2061 OF 2016 (MC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2062 OF 2016 (MC)

¶9

IN MFA NO.2061/2016:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. B.M.SUMA, W/O M B CHANDRAPPA, D/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER, R/O NARASHETTYAHLLI VILLAGE, UBRANI HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577217, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶12

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…APPELLANT (BY SRI UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

M.B.CHANDRAPPA, S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O NARASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE, UBRANI HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577217, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI P M SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2016, PASSED IN M.C NO.03/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶21

IN MFA NO. 2062 OF 2016:

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SMT. B.M.SUMA, W/O M B CHANDRAPPA, D/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER, R/O NARASHETTYAHLLI VILLAGE, UBRANI HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577217, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶24

…APPELLANT

¶25

(BY SRI UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

M.B.CHANDRAPPA, S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O NARASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE, UBRANI HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577217, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶28

…RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI P M SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶30

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2016 PASSED IN MC NO.07/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13.1(1-A)(1-b) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶31

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶32

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

MFA No.2061/2016 is filed by the appellant/wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') challenging the judgment and decree passed in M.C. No.3/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channagiri. In terms of the said judgment and decree, the petition filed by the appellant/wife under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights is dismissed. On the same day, in a separate judgment, the petition filed by the respondent/husband, under Section 13(1-a) (1-b) of the Act of 1955 in M.C. No.07/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channagiri, is allowed and the marriage solemnized on 14.12.2005 is dissolved by a decree of divorce. Hence, the wife has filed MFA No.2062/2016. The husband is the respondent in both appeals.

¶35

For the sake of convenience, the parties to the proceedings are hereafter referred to as the husband and the wife.

¶36

- 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶37

The husband has filed a petition alleging cruelty and desertion and the facts narrated in the petition can be summarized as under:

¶38

The marriage of the parties was solemnised on 14.12.2005. Two daughters were born to the couple. When the petition was filed, the elder daughter Guna was aged about 5 years and the younger daughter Ganavi was aged about 2 years. The husband has contended that for a few years, there was a cordial relationship between the husband and wife and thereafter the wife started neglecting the husband and his family members. She used to quarrel often without there being any reason and she did not prepare food in time. It is also his contention that the wife was not discharging her duties towards the husband. He has further alleged that the wife has neglected the welfare of the children. It is further alleged that his sister filed a suit for partition and the said suit ended in compromise where a legitimate share was given to the husband’s sister. The wife was enraged by this act of giving share to her husband’s sister and as revenge, she filed a complaint in Crime No.236/2012 before Channagiri Police Station making false allegations of cruelty, assault and demand of dowry. It is also

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶41

the contention of the husband that he was detained for two days in the judicial custody and later he was released on bail. The husband contends that the false complaint lodged by the wife has caused a lot of mental cruelty not only to him but also to his entire family. It is the further case of the husband that one more petition is filed against the husband alleging domestic violence. It is further stated that in the said proceedings, the husband's parents were made parties though they were not residing with the husband. The husband further contended that the parents were residing separately and the wife has unnecessarily leveled false allegations against the father and mother. It is further alleged that the wife used to abuse them in filthy language.

¶42

It is further alleged by the husband that despite the advice given by the elders to lead normal marital life, the wife was not willing to lead a normal marital life and in the backdrop of these facts, the husband has filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage.

¶43

Pursuant to the notice, the wife has filed statement

¶44

of objections. The relationship is admitted and the fact that two

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶47

children were born from the marriage is also admitted. Allegations of cruelty alleged in the petition were disputed by the wife. The wife contends that the husband, his parents and also his sister insisted the wife to bring dowry from her parents. It is her further contention that when it was brought to the notice of the parents of the wife, they advised the husband and his parents to maintain a good relationship with the wife and it is also her contention that her parents have given gold ornaments at the time of marriage and it is also her contention that from the money given by her parents, property measuring 25 guntas was purchased in the name of the husband. The wife has further alleged that despite sufficient financial assistance given by her parents, the husband continued to insist on financial assistance from her parents.

¶48

It is also the contention of the wife that the ill-treatment of the husband escalated when the 2^nd daughter was born and she was ill-treated on the premise that male child was not born to the couple. It is further contended that after the birth of the 2^nd child, the wife returned to the matrimonial home in February 2012 and the mother of the husband picked-up quarrel with the wife without there being

¶49

- 7 - NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶50

any cause and she was asked by the mother-in-law to return to her maternal home. It is further alleged that on 29.06.2012, the wife was assaulted by her in-laws and she was hospitalized, thus she lodged a complaint in this regard. It is also her contention that the partition suit between the husband and his sister and other family members is compromised, which is against the interest of the children and she has filed a suit challenging the said compromise decree.

¶51

The wife admitted the fact that she has filed a complaint before CDPO under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. She has further stated that she is willing to stay with her husband and continue with the marital relationship. Accordingly, she has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶52

As noticed earlier, the wife also filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights on the premise that the husband has deserted the company of the wife without there being any reasonable cause.

¶53

The husband has filed statement of objections to the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition on the premise that the wife has ill-treated the husband.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶56

In both cases, evidence was recorded separately. In the petition seeking dissolution of marriage, the husband is examined as P.W.1 and two witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. Fifteen documents are marked on behalf of the husband as Ex.P1 to P15. The wife is examined as R.W.1 and no document is produced on her behalf.

¶57

In the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the wife is examined as P.W.1. One document is produced on behalf of the wife is marked as Ex.P1. The husband is examined as R.W.1 and his witness as R.W.2. Certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.214/2011 is marked at Ex.R1.

¶58

The Trial Court after hearing both the parties and on appreciation of the materials on record concluded that the husband has established his plea relating to cruelty and has granted a decree for the dissolution of the marriage. The Trial Court has also noted that the petition, filed by the wife under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and has held that there is no ground to grant a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and accordingly the said petition is dismissed.

¶59

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶60

Learned counsel appearing for the wife submitted that the allegations of cruelty are not established by the husband. Apart from producing a copy of the complaint, he has not produced any other acceptable materials to show that the wife has treated the husband cruelly and it is also the contention that the act of lodging the complaint cannot be construed as an act of cruelty to grant dissolution of marriage. The Trial Court ought to have considered the entire evidence on the record and ought to have noted that the wife is willing to resume the marital relationship with the husband and ought to have dismissed the petition seeking dissolution of marriage, and ought to have granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶61

Learned counsel for the husband would submit that a false complaint is lodged against the husband as well as his family members eight years after the marriage. The husband was sent to judicial custody for two days and the remaining family member had to file a petition to quash the complaint and FIR. The same were quashed in terms of the order dated 01.02.2019 in Criminal Petition No.404/2013 and the evidence placed on record would establish the fact that the wife was not

¶62

10 -

¶63

NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶64

happy with the decision of the family members of the husband giving a share to the husband's sister and as a revenge she has filed a frivolous complaint not only against the husband, but also against other family members and this act coupled with other acts of the wife would establish the fact that the wife has treated the husband with cruelty. The Trial Court is justified in granting a decree for the dissolution of marriage and dismissing the petition in seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

¶65

This Court has considered the rival contentions

¶66

raised at the bar and also perused the records.

¶67

The marriage is not in dispute and the fact that two daughters are born from the marriage is also not in dispute. It is forthcoming from the records that the husband's sister filed a suit for partition which eventually ended in a compromise and she was given a share in the family properties. The husband contends that the wife filed a frivolous complaint not being happy with the decision of the family in giving a share to his sister. Admittedly, the complaint is filed against the husband and other family members, alleging offences under Sections 504, 506, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is also

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶70

forthcoming from the record that the complaint filed against 10 members of the family is quashed in terms of the order passed in Criminal Petition No.404/2013, dated 01.02.2019.

¶71

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A.Deepa¹ has discussed the issue relating to cruelty in the backdrop of a false and baseless complaint filed against the spouse and the consequential effect of the said frivolous complaint.

¶72

This Court keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the aforementioned case, and the evidence placed before this Court, is of the view that it is apparent that the complaint is filed after 8 years after the marriage and only a day before when the share in the family property was given to the husband's sister by a compromise. In other words, the complaint is filed after the suit is filed by the husband's sister seeking partition. It is also forthcoming from the records that 10 persons were arrayed as accused apart from the husband. This Court in terms of the order dated 01.02.2019 referred to above has concluded that the allegations made against the

¶73

1 (2013)5 SCC 226

¶74

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶75

petitioner/husband in the said case are baseless and are without any basis and consequently has quashed the complaint.

¶76

The Trial Court has referred to Ex.P.4-Order sheet in the criminal proceedings, where it is forthcoming that the husband was sent to judicial custody for two days pursuant to the complaint filed by the wife and later he was released after two days. From the circumstances narrated above and also the documents placed on record, it is apparent that the wife has lodged a frivolous complaint against the husband and also against the other 10 family members. It is also stated at the bar that the husband is acquitted of all charges in criminal cases filed against him.

¶77

The wife has clearly admitted in the cross examination that after the suit filed by the husband's sister, her relationship with her husband was not cordial. She has also admitted that before the suit filed by the husband's sister, she has neither filed any case against the husband nor issued any notice. It is also admitted in the cross examination that the suit was compromised on 05.09.2012 and a day earlier to that i.e. on 4.9.2012 the complaint was lodged against the husband

¶78

- 13 - NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶79

and 10 family members of the husband's family. Thus, it is apparent that the decision of the husband's family to give share to the husband's sister is not accepted by the wife and thereafter, she has proceeded to challenge the mutations pertaining to immovable properties pursuant to the partition.

¶80

It is also forthcoming from the evidence of the wife that after 4.9.2012, there is no contact between the husband and the wife. However, she has admitted in the cross examination that she has filed one more complaint against the husband alleging that he has assaulted her two months prior to the cross examination of the wife. This again would lead to the conclusion that the wife though admitted in the cross examination that there is no contact between the couple, she has proceeded to file a complaint alleging that the husband has assaulted her. Her own admission that there is no contact between the couple since 4.9.2012 would lead to the conclusion that the complaint lodged against the husband alleging assault on wife is a false complaint. There is nothing on record to show that the husband was charge sheeted pursuant to the alleged complaint. This again leads to the inference that the allegation of assault was false.

¶81

14 - NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶82

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the act of the wife lodging a baseless and frivolous complaint against the husband and his entire family members amounts to cruelty. The Trial Court has considered this aspect is of the view that the fact that the husband is sent to jail unnecessarily based on a frivolous complaint and the complaint is filed against all the family members and this Court is of view that the findings of the Trial Court align with the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Srinivas Rao vs. D.A.Deepa stated supra.

¶83

For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that no ground is made out to interfere with the judgment and decree granting dissolution of marriage in favour of the husband.

¶84

As far as the petition filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights is concerned, it is to be noticed that the judgment and decree in the said case are also delivered on the same day when the decree for dissolution of marriage is granted in favour of the husband. This Court is of the view that the husband proved his case relating to cruelty by

¶85

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶86

the wife. Thus, there is no justification in allowing the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights and accordingly the same has been rightly dismissed.

¶87

This Court does not find any reason to interfere

¶88

with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶89

Since no materials are placed to assess the alimony payable, this Court is not deciding on the alimony payable to the wife and the children. The wife is at liberty to claim alimony from the husband, if advised in law. If such a claim is made, the same should be decided on its merits, notwithstanding the decree for divorce confirmed by this Court.

¶90

Hence, the following:

¶91

ORDER

¶92

(i) The judgment and decree dated 27.02.2016 passed in M.C.No.7/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channagiri and the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2016 passed in M.C.No.3/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channagiri are confirmed.

¶93

- 16 - NC: 2023:KHC:20730-DB MFA No. 2061 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2062 of 2016

¶94

(ii) Consequently both the appeals are dismissed .

¶95

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶96

Sd/JUDGE

¶97

Sd/JUDGE

¶98

GVP

Smt. B.M.Suma v. M.B.Chandrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B.M.Suma v. M.B.Chandrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.D. Girish Vs Sowmya N

Sri Rajendra Singh Rathore Vs Royal Orchid Associated Hotels Private Limited

Siddamma Vs Nanje Gowda

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Bhagyalakshmi Shetty

Heena Banu Vs State by Kumaraswamy Layout Ps

Sri Nikhil Manjunath Shanbhag Vs Smt. Apoorva Gurudutt Kamath