This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenges the dismissal of a divorce petition based on cruelty, adultery, and desertion. The High Court held that the appellant failed to provide cogent evidence to prove these grounds and dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:22762-DB MFA No.2960/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2024 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2960/2019 (MC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI. DR. HARINI KUMAR K.M. S/O SRI. MANCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A NO.C-33, USA STAFF QUARTERS OPP TO VETERINARY COLLEGE HEBBAL, BANGALORE.
(BY SRI. KIRAN SEBASTIAN ROZARIO, ADV.,)
AND:
…APPELLANT
SMT. P. PRATHIMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS W/O DR. HARINI KUMAR K.M. R/AT. HOSAHOLALU ROAD K R PET TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT KARNATAKA.
…RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:31.01.2019 PASSED IN MC NO.30/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K R PET, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIGE ACT 1955.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:22762-DB MFA No.2960/2019
JUDGMENT
Challenging the dismissal of his petition for divorce, petitioner in M.C. No.30/2009 on the file of Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pet, has preferred this appeal.
She was not preparing and serving the food. Whenever the petitioner questioned her with regard to her behaviour, she used to pick up unnecessary quarrels. It is also contended that the respondent used to leave the matrimonial home, return whenever she wanted, after the birth of son, she started being away from the company of the petitioner and remained aloof in the home without cohabitation. Therefore, the petitioner suspected the conduct of the respondent and later came to know that the respondent developed an affair and intimacy with a third person by name Aravind and whenever the petitioner questioned such act, the respondent used to quarrel and torture him. Said Aravind used to visit the petitioner's house and on 26.04.2003, when the petitioner enquired about the intimacy between the respondent and Aravind, said Aravind assured that he will come back on 27.04.2003. He also said that if he failed to come on the said day, he would accept the illegal relationship between him and the respondent. The petitioner also brought the affair of the respondent to the notice of her father by sending a detailed letter. It is pleaded that at the intervention of the well wishers and elders of the family, it was decided to file a joint petition for dissolution of
marriage. However, the respondent failed to adhere to the words of the elders. Hence, notices were exchanged and petition for dissolution of marriage was filed. It is further pleaded that the custody of the son is with the respondent and he has filed G & W No.14/2009 as he is capable and highly qualified to up bring his son. It is also pleaded that the respondent has filed O.S.No.333/2007 seeking maintenance and for creation of charge over the properties of the petitioner, wherein the Trial Court has granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent.
matrimonial home retaining jewellery, dress and thereafter, he got issued notice on 13.10.2006 for which the respondent replied suitably. It is pleaded that the petitioner never cared about the well being of the son who is in the custody of the respondent. He neither provided any educational expenses nor nourishment to his children even after the interim order was passed in the suit. The petitioner compelled the respondent to file Ex.No.6/2010 for non payment of the interim maintenance. Thus, she sought dismissal of the petition.
the petitioner failed to prove the ground of desertion and dismissed the petition.
on the respondent, she remained absent and unrepresented.
ANALYSIS
as and when she wanted. When she started maintaining distance from the petitioner and refused to cohabit with him, the petitioner suspected and found out that the respondent had developed extra marital affair with one Aravind who started visiting the house, when that was questioned, the respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner. It is also contended that the said Aravind gave a letter stating that if he did not come and explain the doubts of the petitioner, it can be treated that he has accepted the allegations made against him and accordingly, he could not come and explain the petitioner. Ultimately, the respondent left the company of the petitioner,
went to her parental house and started residing there by deserting the petitioner since April 2003.
and evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that the petitioner failed to prove the ground of cruelty to grant a decree of divorce.
the respondent has deserted him in April 2003. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that the petitioner failed to prove the ground of desertion.
the respondent and one Aravind and the respondent was advised to stay away from Aravind, however, she did not agree for the same. The evidence of PW-3 cannot be believed as he is not an eye witness to the alleged adulterous relationship between the respondent and Aravind. The said witness has not deposed as to how he came to know about the relationship of the respondent and Aravind. In the absence of any such material particulars with regard to serious allegations of adultery, we are of the considered view that the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 cannot be relied. The Trial Court has recorded
a categorical finding that the letters at Exs.P2, P5, P6 and P8 were written by the petitioner to his father-in-law making allegations of the respondent's adulterous relationship with Aravind. Admittedly, those letters were written in the year 2006 but as per the petitioner, the respondent left the matrimonial home in the month of April 2003. It is not known as to why the petitioner kept quite from April 2003 till 2006. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 07.05.1992 and out of the wedlock the couple begot two children. The allegations of adultery originated in 2003 and there is no explanation whatsoever for writing letters
to his father-in-law only in 2006. Hence, the letters at Exs.P2, P5, P6 and P8 cannot be accepted unless they are supported with corroborative evidence.
to the allegations of adultery. The aforesaid finding of the Trial Court is in accordance with law and based on the evidence available on record. The allegations of adultery being serious in nature, the petitioner is required to establish the same with proper pleadings and cogent evidence to support such pleadings. In the instant case, the allegations of adultery are very vague without providing any specific instances or material particulars of the respondent leading an adulterous life with Aravind.
cruelty, desertion and adultery. The said finding of the Trial Court is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence available on record calling for interference in the present appeal.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment and order dismissing the divorce petition is sustainable in law?
Whether the appellant proved the grounds of cruelty, adultery, and desertion to grant a decree of divorce?
Sri. Dr. Harini Kumar K.M.
Smt. P. Prathima
K.S. Mudagal
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
