Allowed
Mahaveerchand S/O Babulal v. Smt. Priyata W/O Mahaveerchand
Karnataka HCMFA/102755/2016
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
No.102755/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
No.102755/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
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.
MFA No.102755/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102755 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SMT. MAHAVEERCHAND S/O. BABULAL, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK, R/O. 1ST FLOOR, MATRU KRUPA, NEAR SAINT MICHEAL SCHOOL, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
(BY SRI DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. PRIYATA W/O. MAHVEERCHAND, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. C/O: AJAY PAREKH, DOOR NO.204/B, “SAI KRUPA APARTMENT”, AIRPORT ROAD, PATEL NAGAR, INDORE, MADHYAPRADESH-05.
(BY SMT. SHWETA KULKARNI, AMICUS CURIAE)
Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.04.2016, PASSED IN MATRIMONIAL CASE NO.213/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(1A) AND (1B) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT & ETC.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.05.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, G BASAVARAJA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MFA No.102755/2016
JUDGMENT
The appellant/petitioner in M.C. No. 213/2015 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi.
Appellant/petitioner/husband has filed a petition under
Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘Act’) seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It is stated that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized at Tera Panth Sabha Bhavan, Robertson Pet, KGF on 13.02.2005 before elders of both family as per the rites and customs of Jain community. After marriage, the respondent came to the native of the petitioner, i.e. KGF, and started happy married life. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working at Mysore in Girias Home Appliances Show Room from 2005 to 2009. That as a result of happy married life, respondent gave birth to a female child by name Chi.Dhwani on 17.01.2006. That the petitioner was promoted and transferred from Mysore to Hubballi in the year
MFA No.102755/2016
2009 as Manager in Girias Home Appliances. Afterwards, petitioner and respondent were residing happily at Hubballi. It is stated that the petitioner is a very fashionable lady, she used to demand luxurious life, take costly ornaments and clothes. Petitioner has fulfilled all the demands of the respondent, however demands of the respondent increased day-by-day and it disturbed the happiness of the family. The petitioner fulfilled maximum desires of the respondent by making all the efforts subsiding his individual desires only for the purpose of making the respondent happy. The parents of the respondent have also tortured the petitioner by demanding money from the petitioner. The petitioner sent money so many times to the bank account of the respondent by borrowing money from friends and taking loan from bank. Though the petitioner is working in a private company and getting low salary, yet he made all serious efforts to fulfill desires of respondent and her parents. Even then the respondent used to blame the petitioner with filthy words. Petitioner tried his best to change the respondent but the respondent, did not change her attitude and behaviour and she has increased her demand to harass the innocent petitioner. The respondent is very adamant, she gave mental torture to the petitioner by making phone calls and chatting with her boy friends. By all these acts of the
MFA No.102755/2016
respondent, the petitioner has suffered mental agony and torture. The respondent went to her native place so many times by making false allegations against the petitioner. Inspite of best efforts to take back the respondent and her daughter Chi.Dhwani, however the respondent did not bother to the request of the petitioner. The respondent went to her native place taking 500 grams gold, utensils and cash of Rs.5,00,000/- which are kept in the cupboard of the petitioner. The respondent has left company of the petitioner from August, 2013. Under these circumstances, petitioner has filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
MFA No.102755/2016
other averments made in the petition as false and sought for divorce and also to grant maintenance to her and her child.
that on receipt of Court notice the respondent has sent a letter to the Court which is placed on record wherein she has sought
MFA No.102755/2016
for divorce. Same is also not considered by the Family Court. On all these grounds sought for allowing the appeal.
1) Whether the appellant has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi?
MFA No.102755/2016
11. Point No.1: We have carefully examined the materials on record. The appellant/petitioner has filed petition for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and produced five documents as Exs.P.1 to P.5.
MFA No.102755/2016
“100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any strait-jacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration.
101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some
1 (2007) 4 SCC 511
MFA No.102755/2016
instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
MFA No.102755/2016
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions
MFA No.102755/2016
of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.”
MFA No.102755/2016
filing the petition. She did not see back the position of the petitioner. This behaviour of the respondent shows how she has tortured the innocent petitioner from 2009 onwards till today. Thus, the respondent has deserted the petitioner.
MFA No.102755/2016
ORDER
Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, is allowed.
The impugned judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi in M.C. No. 213/2015 is set aside. Consequently, M.C. No. 213/2015 stands allowed.
Marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 13.02.2005 at Tera Panth Sabha Bhavan, Robertson Pet, KGF, is dissolved by a decree of divorce.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
Since the learned Amicus Curiae has extended her assistance to this Court in disposal of the appeal, we direct the High Court Legal Services Committee to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as honorarium to Smt.Swetha Kulkarni.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
bvv
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya GhoshRelied on¶14
(2007) 4 SCC 511 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Mahaveerchand S/o. Babulal
Smt. Priyata W/o. Mahveerchand
S G Pandit
G Basavaraja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court