Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
BETWEEN:
ASHOK S/O NINGAREDDI KENCHAREDDI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
R/O. MAGOD, TAL: RANEBENNUR,
AT PRESENT RESIDING AT APPAJIGOUDA BUILDING,
HANUMEGOUDA LAYOUT,
BEHIND VEERASHANDRESHWAR TEMPLE,
TINDLU VIDHYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE-01.
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.SHAMALA, W/O ASHOK KENCHAREDDI
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: H/W,
R/O. LAXMESHWARA, C/O. SMT.SHAMALA
D/O. LATE GOVINDAREDDI
H. ALAVANDI HIREBANA ONI,
LAXMESHWAR NEAR COURT,
TAL: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582101
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28 OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT 1955, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
AND DECREE DATED 26.09.2014 PASSED IN
M.C.NO.26/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, GADAG SITTING AT LAXMESHWAR,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13(1) OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT 1955.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DR. H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY,
J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr. Shivaraj S. Balloli, Adv. for appellant.
Mr. Sachin S. Magadum, Adv. for respondent.
1. The appellant-husband has filed this appeal
under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
challenging the order and decree dated 26.09.2014
passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gadag, sitting at
Laxmeshwar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Court
below’, for short), in M.C.No.26/2011, dismissing the
petition filed under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short),
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
3
seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent –
wife.
2. The present appellant – husband was the
petitioner in the Court below, who had filed a petition
under Section 13(1) of the Act, seeking a decree of
divorce by dissolving his marriage said to have been
performed with the respondent on 02.07.1998. In his
memorandum of appeal, the appellant – husband has
taken a contention that the Court below erred in
disbelieving the evidence of PW1 to PW4, who had
supported the case of the petitioner. It also erred in
arriving at a conclusion that there was no sufficient
evidence on record to hold that the respondent had
deserted him. The appellant has further stated that the
finding of the Court below that the respondent had an
intention to lead marital life and it was the appellant
who had driven her out of her matrimonial home was
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
4
also unfounded one. With this, he has prayed for setting
aside the order and decree under appeal.
3. On notice being issued, respondent – wife has
appeared through her counsel Sri. Sachin S. Magadum.
The records of Court below were called for and the same
are placed before us.
4. Heard the arguments from both sides and
perused the memorandum of appeal, impugned
judgment and the entire materials placed before this
Court.
5. The point that arises for our consideration is:
“Whether the appellant – husband has
made out grounds for setting aside
the order and decree of the Court
below?
6. For the sake of convenience, the parties would
be referred to with the ranks they were holding
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
5
respectively in the Court below.
7. The summary of the case of the petitioner in the
Court below is that, he married the respondent on
02.07.1998 at Magod village as per the customs
prevailing in their community. After marriage, they led
marital life and begot a female child by name Apeksha.
Because of his avocation, the petitioner was living at
Bengaluru with the respondent. After the marriage, the
respondent started to harass the petitioner despite of
love and affection shown towards her by him. She was
considering that the petitioner was not a suitable match
for her and was exhibiting her superiority complex. The
respondent was tolerating all these acts and cruelty
meted out to him by the respondent. The act of the
respondent meeting cruelty was even extended to their
daughter, to whom she was beating quite often. The
respondent used to abuse the petitioner in front of the
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
6
neighbors. When mother of the respondent had visited
their house, the respondent joined her mother and
returned to her matrimonial home at Laxmeshwar,
without even informing to the petitioner. The request
of the petitioner calling her back to the marital home
went in vain. On the contrary, both the respondent and
her parental family members abused him in filthy
language. With this, on the ground of cruelty and
desertion, he has prayed for dissolution of marriage by a
decree of divorce.
The respondent appeared in the Court below and
has filed her statement of objection. In the said
statement of objection, though she admitted that her
marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on
02.07.1998, but denied all other allegations that she
was subjecting her husband to mental cruelty and her
child to physical cruelty and also the allegation that she
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
7
willfully deserted her husband. She further stated that,
out of their wedlock, she has given birth to two children,
incidentally both were daughters. It is her contention
that, since both the children were daughters, she was
subjected to cruelty by her husband. She went to the
extent of alleging that her husband drove her out from
his house and as such, she was compelled to file
maintenance case against him in Criminal
Misc.No.41/2005. She has further alleged that her
husband demanded her to bring `1,00,000/- and other
valuables from her parents’ house. She specifically
alleged that in February 2005, when she went to her
matrimonial home, her husband, stating that she should
enter his house with a cash of `1,00,000/- and other
valuables, refused to admit her to the house and sent
her back to Laxmeshwar. He did not accede to the
advice of elders. It is for this reason, she has filed the
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
8
maintenance petition against her husband. With this,
she prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court
below framed the following issues:
i. Whether the petitioner proves that the
respondent has subjected him to cruelty
and withdrawn his society without
reasonable cause?
ii. What order?
In support of his case, the petitioner got examined
himself as PW1 and got examined 3 other witnesses as
PWs. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. He got produced a copy of
legal notice, postal receipt and reply notice, and marked
them as Exs.P1, P2 and P3 respectively. On behalf of
the respondent, the respondent got herself examined as
RW1 and examined one more witness from her side as
RW2 and got produced copy of the order sheet and
petition sheet in P.C.No.44/2009 as Exs.R1 and R2, a
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
9
copy of marriage invitation card as Ex.R3 and copies of
statements as Exs. R4 and R5.
After hearing both sides, the Court below by its
order and decree dated 26.09.2014, dismissed the
petition filed by the petitioner – husband. It is the said
order and decree, the petitioner – husband has
challenged in this appeal.
8. Even though the petition in the Court below has
been filed under Section 13(1) of the Act, but the main
grounds canvassed by the petitioner – husband in his
petition as the grounds for seeking divorce are that, the
respondent – wife has, after solemnization of marriage,
treated the petitioner with cruelty and that she deserted
him. The said two grounds were the grounds available
under Section 13(1)(i)(ia)(ib), which are reproduced
hereinbelow:
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala10
13. Divorce-
(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether
before or after the commencement of
the Act, may, on a petition presented by
either the husband or the wife, be dissolved
by a decree of divorce on the ground that the
other party-
(i) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the
marriage, treated the petitioner with
cruelty; or
(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a
continuous period of not less than two years
immediately preceding the presentation of
the petition; or
ii)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Either the word ‘cruelty’ or the word ‘desertion’ has
not been defined in the said Act. However, their
meaning and parameters can be understood in the light
of judicial interpretation given in various judgments by
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
11
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
In Vinita Saxena Vs. Pankaj Pandit, reported in
(2006) 3 SCC 778, the Hon’ble Apex Court was
pleased to make the following observations in para 32 to
36 of its judgment:
“32. The word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined
and it has been used in relation to human
conduct or human behaviour. It is the
conduct in relation to or in respect of
matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a
course of conduct and one which is adversely
affecting the other. The cruelty may be
mental or physical, intentional or
unintentional. There may be cases where the
conduct complained of itself is bad enough
and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the
impact or the injurious effect on the other
spouse need not be enquired into or
considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be
established if the conduct itself is proved or
admitted.
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala12
33. The cruelty alleged may largely depend
upon the type of life the parties are
accustomed to or their economic and social
conditions, their culture and human values to
which they attach importance. Judged by
standard of modern civilization in the
background of the cultural heritage and
traditions of our society, a young and well
educated woman like the appellant herein is
not expected to endure the harassment in
domestic life whether mental, physical,
intentional or unintentional. Her sentiments
have to be respected, her ambition and
aspiration taken into account in making
adjustment and her basic needs provided,
though grievances arising from
temperamental disharmony are irrelevant.
This view was taken by the Kerala High Court
in Rajani V. Subramonian, reported in AIR
1990 Ker 1.
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
13
34. In 1993 (2) Hindu LR 637(sic), the Court
had gone to the further extent of observing
as follows:
“Sometime even a gesture, the angry
look, a sugar coated joke, an ironic overlook
may be more cruel than actual beating”
35. Each case depends on its own facts and
must be judged on these facts. The concept
of cruelty has varied from time to time, from
place to place and from individual to
individual in its application according to social
status of the persons involved and their
economic conditions and other matters. The
question whether the act complained of was a
cruel act is to be determined from the whole
facts and the matrimonial relations between
the parties. In this connection, the culture,
temperament and status in life and many
other things are the factors which have to be
considered.
36. The legal concept of cruelty which is not
defined by statute is generally described as
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
14
conduct of such character as to have caused
danger to life, limb or health (bodily and
mental) or to give rise to reasonable
apprehension of such danger. The general
rule in all questions of cruelty is that the
whole matrimonial relations must be
considered, that rule is of a special value
when the cruelty consists not of violent act
but of injurious reproaches, complains,
accusations or taunts. It may be mental such
as indifference and frigidity towards wife,
denial of a company to her, hatred and
abhorrence for wife or physical, like acts of
violence and abstinence from sexual
intercourse without reasonable cause. It must
be proved that one partner in the marriage
however mindless of the consequences has
behaved in a way which the other spouse
could not in the circumstances be called upon
to endure, and that misconduct has caused
injury to health or a reasonable apprehension
of such injury. There are two sides to be
considered in case of cruelty. From the
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
15
appellant’s side, ought this appellant to be
called on to endure the conduct? From the
respondent’s side, was this conduct
excusable? The court has then to decide
whether the sum total of the reprehensible
conduct was cruel. That depends on whether
the cumulative conduct was sufficiently
serious to say that from a reasonable
person’s point of view after a consideration of
any excuse which the respondent might have
in the circumstances, the conduct is such that
the petitioner ought not be called upon to
endure.”
In Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath
Agrawal, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 288, the Hon’ble
Apex Court after referring to some of its earlier
judgments was pleased to observe as;
“The expression ‘cruelty’ has an inseparable
nexus with human conduct or human
behaviour. It is always dependent upon the
social strata or the milieu to which the parties
belong, their ways of life, relationship,
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala16
temperaments and emotions that are
conditioned by their social status. The facts
and circumstances are to be assessed
emerging from the evidence on record and
thereafter, a fair inference has to be drawn
whether the petitioner in the divorce petition
has been subjected to mental cruelty due to
the conduct of the other.”
With respect to ‘desertion’, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey
reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 at para 8 of its judgment
was pleased to observe as below:
“Desertion”, for the purpose of seeking
divorce under the Act, means the
intentional permanent forsaking and
abandonment of one spouse by the other
without that other’s consent and without
reasonable cause. In other words it is a
total repudiation of the obligations of
marriage. Desertion, is not the withdrawal
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala17
from a place but from a state of things.
Desertion, therefore, means withdrawing
from the matrimonial obligations i.e., not
permitting or allowing and facilitating
cohabitation between the parties. The proof
of desertion has to be considered by taking
into consideration the concept of marriage
which in law legalises the sexual
relationship between man and woman in the
society for the perpetuation of race,
permitting lawful indulgence in passion to
prevent licentiousness and for procreation
of children. Desertion is not a single act
complete in itself, it is a continuous course
of conduct to be determined under the facts
and circumstances of each case.”
It is in the light of the above decisions, the
evidence placed before the Court below is to be
analysed.
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
18
9. The petitioner – husband as PW1, in his
examination-in-chief has reproduced the contents of his
petition in the Court below. He has stated that many
times the respondent was telling him that he was not a
suitable match for her and exhibited her superiority over
him by saying that she was the daughter of an
advocate. She was also not giving respect to the
brothers, sisters and relatives who were visiting their
house. He has further stated that, she used to squeeze
their daughter Apeksha, thereby used to beat the child.
She was also not preparing food for them. He has
further stated, after birth of Apeksha, the respondent
refused to return to her matrimonial home. His personal
request asking her to return also went in futile. It is his
further case that, neither the respondent nor her
parental family members informed him about the
delivery of second child by the respondent. He has
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
19
further stated that, he issued a legal notice on
06.06.2005 through his advocate calling upon the
respondent to join him. Instead of returning home, the
respondent replied to the notice making false
allegations.
Denial suggestions were made in the cross-
examination of PW1, which he did not admit as true.
Since categorical denial suggestions were made to PW1
in his cross-examination, the mere evidence of PW1 in
his examination-in-chief itself about the alleged
desertion and cruelty are not sufficient and those
statements require further corroboration. In this regard,
the petitioner examined PWs. 2 to 4 in his support.
PW2 to PW4 claimed themselves to be the persons
knowing the petitioner. PW2 – Sri. Basavaraj R. Beleri,
in his examination-in-chief has stated that the
respondent, whom also he knows, was mentally
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
20
harassing the petitioner since the date of their marriage.
Intentionally she has deserted her husband. However,
in his cross-examination, he has stated that it is only the
elder brother of the petitioner who is known to him since
his house and their house were adjoining houses in
Haliyal, Karwar in U.K. District. Interestingly, in his
cross-examination, this witness has stated that, from
the year 1994 to 2006, he was at Haliyal, but he has
further stated that the petitioner and respondent, after
their marriage were living at Bengaluru, it is only the
petitioner on his visit to Haliyal, when stated about the
alleged differences between himself and his wife, he
came to know about it. This witness has further stated
that he does not know at present where the petitioner
is.
In this way, the statement made by this witness in
his examination-in-chief was thoroughly shaken and
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
21
dismantled in his cross-examination by the respondent’s
side. It was brought in his cross-examination that PW2
had no personal knowledge or information about the
family and living of the parties to the petition. He was
only a hearsay witness with certain assumptions on his
part. As such, his evidence would in no way strengthen
the case of the petitioner.
10. PW3 – L. M. Koppad, whose examination-in-
chief in the form of affidavit evidence is nothing but a
copy of the affidavit evidence of PW2. In his cross-
examination, it was elicited that many of the details of
the family of the parties to the petition are not to the
knowledge of this witness. Neither he knows the
address of the residence of the parties nor the details of
their children, nor even the area of parental home of the
respondent. On the contrary, he claims that he had
visited the parental house of the respondent. Had it
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
22
really been true, he would have at least remembered
the name of the area in Laxmeshwar town, where the
parental house of the respondent – wife was said to be
situated. Therefore, even after claiming that he has
knowledge of the family of the parties to the petition,
when this witness was unable to answer many of the
basic and primary questions regarding the details of the
family of the parties to the petition, the evidence of this
witness does not inspire any confidence to believe.
The evidence of PW4 – Hanumantappa Bellahalli, is
also not an exception to the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3.
The examination-in-chief of this witness is also nothing
but one more copy of affidavit evidence of PWs. 2 and 3.
This witness in his cross-examination has clearly stated
that he does not know as to on what matter the dispute
arouse between the husband and wife. He has also
stated that he does not know what is written in his
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
23
affidavit evidence in the form of examination-in-chief.
In this way, the evidence of none of the witnesses from
PW2 to PW4 can be taken as a trustworthy and
corroborating evidence of PW1.
11. The respondent Smt.Shamala got herself
examined as RW1. In her examination-in-chief, she has
reiterated the contention taken up by her in her
statement of objection filed to the main petition. She
has reiterated that she has not deserted her husband,
but she was thrown out from the house from his
husband himself for the reason that she has given birth
to two female children and that she did not fulfill the
demand of her husband in getting `1,00,000/- cash and
other valuable articles from her father. She has also
stated about she filing a Criminal Misc.No.41/2005
against her husband claiming maintenance from him and
categorically stated that her husband had undergone
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
24
second marriage with one Ms. Shanta on 17.10.2009 at
Shri. Shiddeshwara Kalyan Mantap, Ranebennur.
Challenging this act of bigamy by her husband, she has
filed a criminal case in the Court of JMFC at Laxmeshwar
in C.C.No.249/2013, which is still pending.
In her cross-examination, the suggestions made to
her to the effect that it was she who practiced cruelty
against her husband has not been admitted as true by
her. Except making some denial suggestions, nothing
could be elicited in her cross-examination form the
petitioner side. On the other hand, she has given some
more details about the maintenance case and bigamy
case said to have been filed by her. She got produced
and marked as exhibits the certified copies of
P.C.No.44/2009 as Exs.R1 and R2.
The respondent-wife in support of her evidence got
examined one Sri. Bharmappa Shirahatti as RW2. The
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
25
said witness, stating that he knows the complete details
of the family of the parties to the petition, has stated in
his examination-in-chief that it is the petitioner-
husband, who has deserted his wife and prior to which,
had subjected her to cruelty both physically and
mentally. Interestingly, in spite of granting sufficient
time, this witness was not cross-examined from the
petitioner – husband’s side.
12. Therefore, from the analysis of the above
evidence, of both the parties, it clearly go to show that,
after making certain allegations, the petitioner –
husband has failed to establish them viz., when the
respondent-wife was staying with him, she had
subjected him to cruelty in any manner, and further she
herself has deserted him and left for her parental home.
On the contrary, the respondent – wife through her
detailed and elaborative evidence, supported by Exs.R1
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
26
and R2 and more importantly through undisputed
evidence of PW2, has been able to establish that she has
not deserted her husband and not subjected him to
cruelty. On the contrary, she has made those
allegations against her husband including an allegation
of bigamy against him, which is still under trial before
the competent Court.
13. The above analysis go to show that the
petitioner – husband might have been of the nature of
expecting some extra high respect to him and his family
members from his wife and her parents and he was not
satisfied with what actually he was getting. It can be
further gathered from the evidence that, he wanted that
his wife should praise him even in front of their
neighbors and other people, which she did not do. By
such an act itself, it cannot be concluded that the
petitioner-husband was insulted by his wife or that he
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
27
was ill-treated. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was
subjected to cruelty by his wife. Similarly, the
respondent-wife, apart from dismantling the evidence of
PW1, insofar as the allegation of alleged desertion is
concerned, has further able to present her case to show
that she was deserted by her husband, which compelled
her to file a petition seeking maintenance from him.
These aspects have been appropriately analysed by the
Court below and the Court below has come to a right
conclusion holding that the petitioner before it has failed
to make out grounds entitling him for the relief of
dissolution of marriage with the respondent. As such,
we do not find any convincing ground to interfere in the
said observation made by the Court below in its order of
dismissal of the petition filed before it by the present
appellant.
Date of Judgment .14.06.2017 M.F.A. No.100286/2015 (FC)
Ashok Vs. Shamala
28
14. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following
order:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab