1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.439/2012(FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI.K.P.SURYAKANTHA
S/O SRI.PANCHAKSHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT LALITHAMMA’S HOUSE
S.C.M. BUS COMPOUND
JYOTHI NAGAR
BY PASS ROAD
SHIMOGA- 577 202. ..APPELLANT

(BY SRI M.RAVI PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT.M.A.AMRUTHA BAI
W/O K.P.SURYAKANTHA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS WOMAN CONSTABLE
VINOBA NAGAR POLICE STATION
SHIMOGA- 577 202. .. RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF
THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, R/W SEC. 19 (1) OF
FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
2

DECREE DATED: 01.10.2011 PASSED IN M.C. NO.
166/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1) (ia) AND 13 (1) (ib) OF
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, FOR DISSOLUTION OF
MARRIAGE.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 10.12.2018 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
BAJANTHRI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Appellant filed petition under Section 13(1)(i-a)

and 13(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) seeking dissolution of

his marriage with the respondent solemnized on

19.10.2004 at Idagunji Ganapathi Temple near

Honnavar registered on 09.11.2004. It was rejected by

the Family Court at Shivamogga in M.C.No.166/11 on

01.10.2011. Hence, the present appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant

married the respondent on 19.10.2004 at Idagunji

Ganapathi Temple near Honnavar and marriage was

registered on 09.11.2004. Out of wedlock, a male child

was born to them on 15.07.2005. Appellant’s version is
3

that respondent was a constable and she was very rude

and cruel to him. She had not returned from parental

house after delivery of the child despite making every

effort, personally and through well wishers. Through

goonda elements, respondent used to threaten the

appellant and filed false complaint against the

petitioner. He has also made allegations that respondent

is in the habit of consuming alcohol in the company of

miscreants and she has filed a dowry harassment case

against appellant as a result of which the appellant was

in judicial custody for a week and she has deserted him

since 15.07.2005. She has also neglected her child in

not looking after him. She has also pressurized the

owner of the appellant’s house to evict the petitioner

and his parents from rental house which has led to

filing of divorce petition.

3. On the other hand, respondent filed objection

wherein she has admitted certain facts like marriage,

giving birth to child. There was a strained relationship

among the appellant and respondent relating to certain
4

behavior of the appellant which is not beyond

reconciliation. She has specifically denied other

allegations. In fact, child has been given utmost care

while sending him to school and making him

comfortable within her economical capacity with the

assistance of her parents. Further, she has also made

certain allegations against the appellant relating to an

act of kidnap by the appellant and his supporters on

15.10.2004 and was compelled to marry the appellant

though she was not willing, in other words it was a

forced marriage. In this regard, respondent’s parents

lodged a missing complaint before the Rural Police

Station. Appellant is in the habit of taking away

valuable articles like mobile, earrings, necklace of the

respondent in order to perform the marriage of his

younger sister. So also, appellant and his parents have

harassed her even to bring dowry as parents of the

appellant were not happy having regard to the appellant

and respondent’s belonging to a different caste.

Appellant and his parents conspired to perform second

marriage of the appellant with one VIjayakumari which
5

was stalled at the behest of the respondent. Thus,

allegations and counter allegations have been made by

the appellant and respondent. Family Court examined

PW1 and marked 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.13 so

also examined the respondent as RW1 and Ex.R.1 was

taken into consideration while framing points that arose

for consideration which is extracted hereunder:

1. Whether the petitioner has proved
that respondent has subjected him to
physical and mental cruelty and thus he is
entitled for a decree of divorce
U/Sec.13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955?

2. Whether the petitioner has proved
that the respondent has deserted him for a
continuous period of 2 years immediately
preceding the presentation of petition and
thus, he is entitled for a decree of divorce
U/Sec.13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955?

3. To what order?

4. Family Court has gone into the allegations and

counter allegations in depth. Such allegations were not

supported with any corroborative evidence. In other

words, appellant’s intention was to get rid of the

respondent. In this regard, it is evident that he had
6

hatched a plan of spoiling the reputation of the

respondent while publishing her personal issues in a

news paper called ‘Vidhata’ where the appellant was a

reporter. Certain personal issues of the respondent has

been reported in the aforesaid news paper which has

been produced as Ex.R.1 – extract of the news paper as

the author of the report was the colleague of the

appellant, which is evident that appellant has supplied

information to the author of the report. Insofar as other

allegations against the respondent are baseless in the

absence of corroborative evidence which cannot be

looked into.

5. In the present appeal, appellant has stated that

Family Court has not appraised cruelty meted out to the

appellant by the respondent while ignoring each of the

contentions, allegations while accepting respondent’s

version. Such contention of the appellant are very vague

for the reason that respondent filing complaint under

Section 498A, 506 amounts to mental cruelty. Mere

filing of a complaint under Section 498A and 506 does

not amount to cruelty. If the appellant succeeded in
7

dowry harassment case to the extent that it was false, in

such circumstances one can draw inference to some

extent in order to malign the appellant’s reputation, a

false dowry case has been registered. Therefore, it is

premature to come to the conclusion that appellant has

been mentally harassed on the score that respondent

had filed a dowry harassment case.

Insofar as child was not taken care is concerned,

no documentary evidence or any other evidence has

been produced to establish that respondent is ignorant

of taking care of child and his education etc. Such a

bald allegation cannot be appreciated so also Family

Court rejected the appellant’s contention. The

contention of the appellant that marriage between him

and respondent has failed beyond repair is not

supported by sufficient material so as to attract

ingredients of cruelty and desertion. The respondent in

her objection specifically contended that she is willing to

join the appellant and lead marital life; there is no

serious allegations so that one can draw inference that

marriage has broken down irretrievably. Such a
8

contention of the respondent has been appreciated by

the Family Court while rejecting the appellant’s petition.

Allegations which are stated by both Appellant and

Respondent are not supported by any evidence so also

neither the parents nor any person supported the

allegations of the appellant as well as the respondent so

as to examine whether appellant was meted out cruelty

at the hands of the respondent vis-versa. Appellant has

not made out a case so as to interfere with the Family

Court order dated 01.10.2011 passed in

M.C.No.166/2011.

Appeal stands rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE
brn