Geeta Patel Vs Jayanti Lal Patel

JAYANTI LAL PATEL S/O KISHORE PATEL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.12/7/177/1, BEHIND YAMAHA SHOW ROOM, GOSHALA ROAD, RAICHUR AND ALSO, RESIDING AT NEW PATEL GUNJ, JALARAM TRADING BACK LINE OF BLOCK NO.1, RAICHUR – 584 101.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB MFA No. 200225 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2022 PASSED IN MC.NO.93/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT RAICHUR BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT/WIFE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE OF AND EQUITY.

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND

¶26

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA

¶27

CAV JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA)

¶29

The present appeal is preferred by the wife assailing the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2022 in M.C.No.93/2020 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as “Family Court” for short). By the impugned judgment, the Family Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-wife under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for short) seeking

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB MFA No. 200225 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage solemnized between the parties on 30.04.2006.

¶33

The parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court.

¶34

Brief facts of the case:

¶35

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 30.04.2006 as per the customs prevailing in their community. From the said wedlock, a female child namely Hiya was born, who is presently under the care and custody of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the marriage, the respondent and his mother subjected her to physical and mental cruelty without any justifiable cause. The petitioner alleges that the respondent harbored unfounded suspicion about her fidelity and character, particularly when she visited temples and frequently accused her of infidelity.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB MFA No. 200225 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

It is averred that the respondent is addicted to

¶39

bad vices and he squanders all his earnings on such habits. It is also alleged that the respondent and his mother expressed dissatisfaction upon the birth of a female child and their acts of cruelty were intensified thereafter. The petitioner further alleged that her father had paid an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the respondent for purchasing a house. However, the said amount was misappropriated by the respondent and spent on his bad vices. Further, despite several attempts for reconciliation through community panchayat and intervention by the elders, the respondent failed to mend his behavior or resume the matrimonial life with the wife. She contends that she was driven out of the matrimonial home by the respondent and his mother and she is now residing separately. Further, the marital relationship has irretrievably broken down leaving no possibility of reconciliation. Hence, she prayed for decree of divorce by allowing the petition.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB MFA No. 200225 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The respondent appeared before the Family

¶43

Court and filed his statement of objection denying the averments and allegations made by the petitioner in the petition. He contended that the petitioner without any just cause used to instigate quarrels on a daily basis. It is further averred that the petitioner is running a beauty parlor by investing the money earned by the respondent. Further, the petitioner is leading a lavish life and frequently purchasing the luxurious items, according to respondent, these actions led to frequent disputes between them. It is the specific contention that he never neglected the petitioner nor subjected her to cruelty rather it was her, who has voluntarily left the matrimonial home and deserted him without any valid reasons. The respondent specifically averred that he is willing to lead a marital life with the petitioner and daughter.

¶44

Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Family Court has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish that

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB MFA No. 200225 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

the respondent subjected her to such cruelty as would reasonably cause an apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for her to continue living with him. The Family Court further held that the petitioner

¶48

did not prove that the respondent had deserted for a continuous period not less than two years prior to the presentation of the petition, without any reasonable cause. It is further observed that no acceptable material evidence has been produced by the petitioner to show that she had been subjected to physical or mental cruelty either by the respondent or by her mother-in-law or that she has been forcefully thrown out from the matrimonial home. The Family Court noted that the petitioner, despite alleging harassment and cruelty, had not lodged any complaint before the authorities against the respondent and his mother prior to filing the petition and this, according to the Family Court weakened her credibility.

¶49

Further, the Family Court also took note of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 (mother of the petitioner-

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB MFA No. 200225 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

wife) wherein, it was admitted that the husband and wife

¶53

had lived together happily for a period following their marriage and that respondent has facilitated the opening of beauty parlor for wife. In light of this, the Family Court found it difficult to believe the wife’s claim about cruelty and dismissed the petition seeking divorce.

¶54

Assailing the judgment and decree passed by

¶55

the Family Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is unsustainable both on facts and in law. It is argued that the Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and ignored

¶56

the material aspects while dismissing the petition. It is specifically contended that the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station, Raichur, alleging offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC against the respondent. It is pointed out that police upon investigation have filed charge sheet before

¶57

the jurisdictional Magistrate and the same forms crucial evidence substantiating petitioner’s claim of cruelty. Along

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB MFA No. 200225 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

with the appeal, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.2/2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to produce additional documents on record. It is submitted that these documents being complaint, FIR and charge sheet are material to substantiate the grounds of cruelty pleaded in the divorce petition. These documents were not available and could not be produced at the time of trial and hence prayed that the said documents to be taken on record and considered as additional evidence for proper adjudication of the appeal.

¶61

It is contended that filing of criminal complaint

¶62

and consequent charge sheet after the dismissal of the divorce petition are themselves indicative of the cruelty meted out to her. It is submitted that the Family Court erred in ignoring the cumulative effect of physical and mental harassment inflicted upon the petitioner and rejection of the petition by the Family Court warrants interference.

¶63

9 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB MFA No. 200225 of 2023

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

¶67

husband opposed the appeal as well as I.A.No.2/2023 filed by the petitioner seeking permission to produce additional documents. It is contended that the judgment and decree

¶68

of the Family Court is just and proper and based on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out any valid grounds warranting any interference by this Court. With regard to the complaint dated 16.02.2022, it is submitted that the same has been lodged after the dismissal of the divorce petition and is clearly an after thought, intended to create pressure and to build a case for divorce at the appellate stage.

¶69

It is contended that the complaint is false and motivated, charge sheet filed therein is pending trial and hence same cannot be treated as conclusive proof of cruelty. He further submitted that the documents now sought to be produced by way of I.A.No.2/2023 were not part of the original pleadings or trial proceedings and

¶70

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB MFA No. 200225 of 2023

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

therefore it should not be allowed at the time of appellate stage. It is argued that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity during trial to produce any relevant evidence about cruelty as on that date and having failed to produce any evidence, the Family Court was justified in holding that the petitioner has failed to prove the cruelty meted against her. The counsel for the respondent reiterates that the respondent is always ready and willing to lead a peaceful marital life and with the said contention seeks to dismiss the appeal as well as I.A.No.2/2023.

¶73

We have considered the contention urged by

¶74

the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, having heard them, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶75

“Whether the judgment and decree of the Family Court is sustainable and whether additional documents sought to be produced by way of I.A.No.2/2023, though subsequent to the impugned judgment are relevant and necessary

¶76

11 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB MFA No. 200225 of 2023

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

for a just and complete adjudication of the controversy, particularly an issue of cruelty?”

¶80

The relationship between the parties is not in

¶81

dispute. It is also not in dispute that they are living separately. The case of the petitioner is that she was subjected to cruelty and after the dismissal of the petition, complaint was filed by her, due to the continued acts of cruelty, these are the material evidence and are crucial for proper adjudication. The documents sought to be produced are charge sheet, complaint and FIR. It is to be noted that the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and her mother as P.W.2. Interestingly, the evidence of P.W.2 appears to support the version of the respondent to some extent, which was taken into account by the Family Court while dismissing the petition. However, the subsequent filing of police complaint, submission of charge sheet by the jurisdictional police on allegation of cruelty, documents which are placed on record through I.A.No.2/2023,

¶82

12 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB MFA No. 200225 of 2023

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

constitute material evidence that would have bearing on

¶86

the issues on hand.

¶87

The relevance and evidential value of such documents can only be assessed with oral and documentary evidence of both the parties and thus we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires a fresh consideration by the Family Court in light of the additional

¶88

documents and any further evidence by the parties, accordingly the point framed for consideration is answered and we pass the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90