The High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, in this miscellaneous first appeal, dismissed the appeal filed by the husband challenging the Trial Court's order upholding a divorce petition filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
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:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5113/2018 (FC)
BETWEEN:
MR. BANDARU NAVEEN KUMAR S/O SRI JANARDHAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.03-107/2 PEARL CORONET APARTMENTS JOGUPALYA, C V RAMANNAGAR BANGALORE 560093.
Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION WITH FRIENDS OR RELATIVES.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VIDYA R. GOWDA, ADV., FOR SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B. ADV.,)
AND:
SMT. DEVATA PRAVEENA W/O MR. BANDARU NAVEEN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.03-107/2 PEARL CORONET APARTMENTS JOGUPALYA, C.V RAMANNAGAR BANGALORE 560093.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.A. SEBASTIAN, ADV.,)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.03.04.2018 PASSED ON MC NO.2381/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13(1)(ia) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
NC: 2024:KHC:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging the dismissal of his petition for divorce, petitioner in M.C.No.2381/2013 on the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore has preferred this appeal.
(i) Respondent, claiming that she has higher qualification than the petitioner, was humiliating him.
(ii) She was non-cooperative since the beginning of the marriage. She was unwilling for the consummation of the marriage. Therefore, they begot a daughter belatedly after four years of the marriage.
(iii) After the birth of daughter, there was no understanding, love, affection and commitment on the part of respondent towards the petitioner and his family and she was treating them with utter disrespect.
(iv) She neither accompanied the petitioner to visit his parents nor allowed him to visit.
(v) She did not attend any functions in his parental family
and whenever she visited, she used to end up fighting.
(vi) She did not facilitate the petitioner to attend the marriage ceremony of his younger brother Kishore.
(vii) She did not allow the petitioner's parents to see the child. When they went to see the newborn child, she did not allow them to stay in the house of the petitioner. She did not provide them food and water during their stay in the house and forcing them to have their food outside.
(viii) Respondent made unfounded allegations of petitioner leading an adulterous life with his sister-in-law and
NC: 2024:KHC:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
she deleted her phone number from the mobile device of petitioner.
(ix) When petitioner got a job in USA, though he arranged Visa for respondent and their child, she refused to accompany him which forced him to quit his job in USA.
(x) In November 2009, when the petitioner had to take a flight to Pune, respondent put their daughter into his hands demanding that he should take the child to Pune, went to her bedroom and locked herself from inside which caused him hardship in his employment.
(xi) On 05.12.2012, when he was attending the meeting of apartment association, she forced him to accompany her for shopping by abandoning the meeting. When he tried to convince her to stay till the meeting is over, she abused him and his parents in foul language.
(xii) Respondent is poisoning the mind of the child to nurture hatredness towards him.
(xiii) With an intention to throw him out of the house, she was pressurizing him to leave the house and pushed him out of the house.
(xiv) She was sending disturbing e-mails.
NC: 2024:KHC:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
(xv) In January 2013, respondent came near his office, quarreled with him, removed her mangalasutra and threw that towards him declaring that their relationship is severed.
(xvi) She consistently refused physical proximity to him. Such acts of cruelty of the respondent has made it impossible to continue his marital life with her. Hence, he sought decree for dissolution of marriage.
NC: 2024:KHC:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
and he never bothered to maintain her and her daughter. He took up a job in USA only to abandon her and her daughter. The allegations of she poisoning the mind of the child was denied. She sought dismissal of the petition.
the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to prove the cruelty alleged by him. The Trial Court further rejected I.A.No.14 filed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner has paid Rs.32,00,000/-. Respondent did not challenge dismissal of I.A.No.14 but the petitioner has preferred the above appeal questioning dismissal of his petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
NC: 2024:KHC:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
ANALYSIS
were married on 24.04.2004 and they begot a daughter on 21.04.2008. It is also not in dispute that the child is with the respondent. The educational qualification and employment of both parties are also not in dispute. When the petitioner came before the Court saying that respondent subjected him to cruelty, the burden of proving the same was on him. The petitioner alleged that the respondent subjected him to mental cruelty by several of her acts, making it impossible for him to live with her. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh1 in paragraph 101 held as follows:
" 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some 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.
1 (2007) 4 SCC 511
NC: 2024:KHC:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
( 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.
( viii ) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional
NC: 2024:KHC:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
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 dayto-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 sterilisation 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
NC: 2024:KHC:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."
[Emphasis supplied]
examine whether any acts of parties amount to cruelty, the entire matrimonial life of the parties has to be comprehensively appraised, then it has to be analysed whether the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. It further shows that mere coldness or lack of affection or normal wear and tear of marital life cannot amount to cruelty. The trivial irritations, quarrels which happened in day-to-day life is not adequate to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty. This case has to be examined in the light of the aforesaid guidelines / principles.
NC: 2024:KHC:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
of he getting a child denies the allegation that there was no
cohabitation between them for consummation of marriage.
contemptuous towards him and his family members on the ground that she was more qualified than him, was denied by the respondent and that remained only a self-serving statement. He did not choose to examine either his colleagues or his parents to prove the alleged humiliation or her disrespect towards his parents.
himself and respondent used to converse over phone. To the suggestion that even during the Court proceedings he went with the respondent for lunch, he says that they went together for coffee. If there was such a bitter relationship, he would not have accompanied her for coffee while fighting the litigation. He speaks about the particulars of his daughter, studies, her school, etc. Though he claims that he tried to see his child and the respondent did not permit, he did not file any application before the Trial Court seeking visitation rights or custody of the child. He admitted that he had no impediment to enquire about her studies. He admitted that his daughter enjoys his company and they are happy together and daughter had not shown any hatredness towards him. He also admits that his parents met the child once or twice after she was born. If really the respondent poisoned the mind of the child, child would not have enjoyed his company and they could not have been happy together. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in holding that the said allegation was not proved.
NC: 2024:KHC:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
had admitted that at the time of said marriage, the respondent was at the advance stage of pregnancy and was advised not to travel. He further admits that he attended the marriage ceremony for three days despite such condition of the respondent. His contention that respondent prevented her father from coming to Bangalore to stay with her to allow the petitioner to attend the marriage ceremony, was denied by her. Except his self-serving testimony, there was no evidence to show that he requested her to get her father and she denied that.
NC: 2024:KHC:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
Consultancy. He also admits that for the better job, he came back to Bangalore and his wife also came back to Bangalore. He admits that he had gone to USA on work assignment of his Company i.e. his employer in Bangalore. He admits that till 2008, he worked in the same Company. He himself says that thereafter he went to USA, took up the job as he wanted to live away from the respondent. To the question that the respondent is ready to continue her relationship with him, he declares that he is not ready to live with her. That goes to show that he himself withdrew from the company of the respondent. His allegations that because of respondent he had setback in his career, was not proved.
sexual cohabitation though he was interested in having the second child. But he himself claims that they lived together till December 2012. As rightly pointed out by the Trial Court, he failed to prove the e-mails Ex.P4 by producing the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If the respondent was denying him proximity, he would not have gone with her for coffee when the Court proceedings were going on. The above circumstances show that the petitioner failed to prove the cruelty as alleged by him. Per contra, his admissions show that he himself was not responsible in discharging his spousal and parental duties. The allegations made by the petitioner were neither proved nor constitute mental cruelty as held in Samar Ghosh's case referred to supra to enable him to seek decree for dissolution of marriage. The Trial Court, on due appreciation of evidence, has dismissed the petition. The same does not warrant interference of this Court. It is also to be noted that respondent not preferring appeal against rejection of I.A.No.14, does not affect the right of the child to pursue legal remedy, if any. Hence, the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:25930-DB MFA No.5113/2018
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Having regard to the relationship between the parties, no
order as to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the divorce petition on the ground that the allegations of mental cruelty were not adequately proven.
Whether the petitioners' own admissions and lack of corroborating witnesses justify the dismissal of cruelty allegations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511Applied¶66
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mr. Bandaru Naveen Kumar
Smt. Devata Praveena
K.S. Mudagal
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
