SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Shilpa vs Sri Channabasaiah E on 7 December, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6123/2012(FC)

BETWEEN:

Smt.Shilpa
W/o Channabasaiaha E
d/o R. Karisiddaswamy
Aged about 29 years
House Wife, Door No. 687/1
S.K.P. Road
Raghavendra Mata
Davanagere- 577 002 … APPELLANT

(BY SRI MANJUNATH PATTANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Sri.Channabasaiah E
S/o Late Eswaraiah
Aged about 30 years
Door No. 906/1
Beside Jain Temple
Doddapet, Davanagere …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF
THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED: 18.04.2012 PASSED IN M.C.NO.
2

30/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, DAVANAGERE, ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(i-a) OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, FOR DIVORCE.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 20th NOVEMBER 2018 AND COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
BAJANTHRI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

In the instant appeal, appellant has questioned

the validity of the judgment dated 18.04.2012 passed in

M.C.No.30/11 by the Family Court, Davanagere by

which respondent’s M.C.No.30/11 was allowed while

accepting the application for divorce under Section

13(1)(1-a) of Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘The Act’)

declaring the marriage solemnized between the

appellant and respondent on 25.03.2007 as dissolved.

2. The appellant and respondent got married on

25.03.2007. Out of their wedlock a baby girl was born

on 21.01.2010 and she has been named as Chinmayee.

Certain disputes arose between among appellant and

respondent as the appellant was not compatible in the

joint family of the respondent. The appellant was
3

abusing respondent’s mother, sister and other relatives.

So also not looking after her mother-in-law, frequently

visiting to her parents house which was at walkable

distance from her husband’s house. Appellant has also

made serious allegations against the respondent to the

extent of he having illicit relation with his own sister.

The respondent with the aforesaid tantrums of the

appellant, was un-necessarily subjected to mental

harassment. So also on 06.12.2010, parents of the

appellant and others visited the respondent-husband’s

residence, abusing the family members of the husband

including husband so also assaulted parents of the

respondent for which one of the parent has taken

treatment at C G Hospital, Davangere. Arising out of

these domestic issue, appellant settled in her mother’s

place. The respondent issued a notice on 16.12.2010

asking the appellant to join him at his residence as she

was away from her husband. The appellant refused to

accept the notice. However, UCP was served on her.

When things stood thus, the appellant filed a dowry

harassment case against the respondent’s family
4

members due to which the respondent was in custody

for a day. With such harassment, respondent could not

tolerate the mentality of the appellant so also her

attitude. Thus, respondent proceeded to file an

application for divorce.

3. The Family Court appraised various

circumstances i.e., conduct of the appellant in not

joining her husband so also the fact that she was not

listening to her husband’s words, her behavior in the

husband’s home, without the knowledge of the

respondent/husband the appellant settled in her

parental home and even at the time of pregnancy and

giving birth to her daughter she was away from her

husband. Her daughter was suffering from jaundice

when she was born. At that juncture, the respondent

came to know and he assisted his wife and took care of

the baby girl by donating blood. Thus, the Family Court

proceeded to pass a decree of divorce in favour of the

respondent.

5

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that cruelty has not been proved. She has

also submitted that she is ready to join with the

respondent/husband to lead marital life. The contention

of the appellant has not been appreciated by the Family

Court where as the contention of the respondent has

been appreciated in the absence of any material. Thus,

the judgment passed in M.C.No.30/2011 dated

18.04.2012 is liable to be set-aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently

contended that appellant never co-operated with the

husband’s family and that she was insisting to settle

separately and to live away from her in-laws, she was

mentally harassing the respondent by one or the other

tantrums and members of the husband’s family

including assault and initiation of criminal proceedings.

Further, unnecessarily the appellant registered a

criminal case of dowry harassment for which the

respondent was compelled to stay one day in custody.

So also, the appellant and her family members harassed
6

the respondent and his family both mentally as well as

physically, which is evident from Ex.P.2 relating to

taking treatment in the hospital. The court below has

appreciated the evidence of respondent as well as

appellant dated 02.09.2011 and 15.11.2011 marked as

Exs.P.1 to P.18. Thus, the appellant has not made a

case so as to interfere with the judgment passed in

M.C.No.30/11 dated 18.04.2012.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The contention of the appellant is that

respondent has not made out a case for divorce and

decree under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. What has

been alleged against the appellant is that appellant was

frequently visiting her parents and not looking after

respondent/husband and his parents and sister, so

also abusing them and demand for bringing a sum of

Rs.50,000/- are not supported by any documents and

in this regard, the appellant has been harassed and she

has been thrown out of the house. These allegations

have been appreciated by the Family Court,
7

Davanagere. On the other hand, the respondent in

support of divorce petition has produced documents

from Exs.P.1 to P.18. On perusal of Ex.P.2 – out patient

slip of the C G Hospital, Ex.P.3 – police complaint, Ex.P.

9 – legal Notice, Ex.P.14 – FIR, Ex.P.15 – police

complaint, Ex.P.16 – medical certificate and Ex.P.17 –

certificate for donating blood has been taken into

consideration. That apart, pursuant to the appellant’s

police complaint the respondent was taken to custody

for a day. These allegations against the appellant by the

respondent/husband would constitute cruelty as held

by the Family Court, Davanagere. In order to deny the

aforesaid allegations and documents against the

appellant, the appellant has not produced any material

evidence and she has relied on only her statement viz.,

RW1 dated 15.11.2011 which is a self serving

statement.

8

8. In view of these facts and circumstances, the

appellant has not made out a case so as to interfere

with the Family Court’s judgment and decree dated

18.04.2012. Hence, appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

brn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation