MRS. M.P. ASHWINI v. MR. C.D. SAINATH

2. We refer to the parties as per their ranks before the trial court.

3. Petitioner filed the petition under Section 13(1) (1a) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 seeking relief of decree of divorce. It was the case of the petitioner that he married respondent on 30.05.2008 according to Hindu rituals and customs. After marriage respondent-wife came to matrimonial house situated at Bengaluru to lead marital life. The parents of the petitioner were residing with him - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB MFA No. 5751 of 2021 as he was the only son to them. Initially relationship between petitioner and respondent was cordial. Thereafter, respondent started quarreling and harassing the petitioner for one or the other reasons. She was demanding money from the petitioner to pay the same to her parents. Whenever he refused to pay the same, she was threatening him that she would file complaint against him to police alleging that he was treating her cruelly for sake of dowry. Due to the said threat, he was paying money to the respondent, whenever she had demanded.

4. It is further stated by the petitioner that earlier respondent was married to one Venkatesh; The said Venkatesh obtained decree of divorce from her. This fact was suppressed by respondent and her parents from the petitioner. The respondent was not preparing food and she was always busy in conversation over mobile phone with others. Mother of the respondent was office bearer of Women’s Association and she was interfering in personal matter of the petitioner. She was trying to dominate over - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB MFA No. 5751 of 2021 him. Respondent and her mother were threatening petitioner and his parents that “if they do not follow their directions, then she would bring the members of Women’s Association and hold dharna in front of his house.” Due to the same, petitioner and his parents were following directions of respondent and her mother.

5. It further case of the petitioner that respondent was harassing the parents of the petitioner and forcing them to reside separately. Due to the said harassment, mother of the petitioner died on 02.03.2013. The father of the petitioner was aged about 70 years and suffering from age related health problems. Even he was unable to move independently. Respondent was falsely alleging against him stating that he was trying to molest her and sexually harass her. She was also threatening the petitioner and his father that she would commit suicide by leaving a death note stating that they were responsible for death. Respondent intended to live separately from her in- laws. She forced petitioner to live separately from his - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB MFA No. 5751 of 2021 parents. When he refused to do so, respondent started to do all these illegal acts. From the behavior of the respondent, petitioner was suspecting that she was suffering from some psychological problems. She used to suddenly get upset without any reasons and throw the remote of the T.V, utensils and other things and quarrelling with him and his parents. The petitioner also came to know that the first husband of respondent i.e. Venkatesh filed divorce petition in Case.No.1377/2006 and in the said case, it was alleged that she had psychological problems; Growth of her mind was not proportionate to her age. The petitioner found it true.

6. It is also stated by the petitioner that the respondent was frequently going to her parents house and she was not returning to matrimonial home. Inspite of all these harassments, the petitioner continued his relationship with the respondent hoping that she would correct herself. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB MFA No. 5751 of 2021

7. It further case of petitioner that on

25.01.2014, respondent assaulted his father and due to the same, his father left home without giving any information. Thereafter, the respondent informed the same to the petitioner when he was in the shop. Petitioner immediately left the shop in search of his father. Respondent and her father locked the shop of the petitioner and went to their house. Thereafter, respondent neither returned to the matrimonial home nor she gave the key of the shop. Respondent gave all sort of physical and mental torture to the petitioner as well as to his parents. It became impossible to lead marital life with her. With these grounds, he prayed for decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

8. The respondent contended that at the time of her marriage with the petitioner, on his demand, her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- cash, house hold articles, one kg gold, 5 kg silver and diamond jewelleries etc. Subsequent to marriage on the demand of petitioner, her - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB MFA No. 5751 of 2021 father gave a car to him. Prior to marriage her parents had informed the petitioner and his parents about her first marriage and also divorce given by her first husband.

9. The respondent further contended that father of the petitioner was moving inside the house without clothes. He was sexually harassing her. When she was sleeping in the room, he tried to touch her private parts. She complained it to her husband and he refused to take any action against his father. The petitioner and his father was insisting and forcing her parents to gift a site to the petitioner. Petitioner used to assault her several times. She tolerated the same with an intention to continue marital relationship with the petitioner. On 25.01.2014 the petitioner himself sent her out from his house. The petitioner did not respond when she tried to contact him and she could not meet him. He locked the matrimonial home. Helplessly, she started residing in her parent’s house. Later on, she came to know that petitioner shifted to another house without her knowledge. Due to all these - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB MFA No. 5751 of 2021 harassments, she lodged complaint against the petitioner to police. She loves the petitioner and she intends to continue her marital relationship with him. The grounds urged in the petition are false. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

10. The trial court recorded the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and RW-1. Petitioner got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and respondent got marked Ex.R1. The learned trial Judge after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record found that respondent was cruel towards her husband and allowed the petition by impugned judgment and granted decree of divorce.

11. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. We tried to conciliate both the parties to continue their marital relationship but it was not successful.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds taken in the appeal memo and urged that the trial court has not considered the pleadings and evidence - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB MFA No. 5751 of 2021 properly. There was no sufficient ground for decree of divorce. The appellant never treated petitioner and his parents cruelly, on the contrary, the petitioner and his parents ill-treated her and harassed her. These facts were not at all considered by the trial court. The trial court came to a wrong conclusion, which needs interference by this court.

13. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that trial court appreciated the evidence properly and in right perspective came to a right conclusion and it does not call for any interference by this court.

14. Following question arise for our determination: Whether the trial court erred in granting decree of divorce to the petitioner?

15. Our answer to the above question is in the Negative for the following reasons: Both the side gave evidence and the trial Court discussed the evidence in detail. It is the case of petitioner - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB MFA No. 5751 of 2021 that he did not make separate residence to his parents therefore she was harassing him and she even went to an extent of alleging against his father that he was trying to outrage her modesty. Undisputedly, mother of the petitioner died after marriage in 2013 due to cancer. His father was aged more than 72 years and had been ailing from age related diseases and became weak. As per the contention of the petitioner, he was unable to walk independently. These facts were not seriously disputed by respondent-wife. In her cross examination, she admits that her husband was taking care of her properly and she had grievance against his parents. Looking to the status of health and age of petitioner’s father, it is difficult to believe her evidence that her father-in-law tried to sexually assault her. Medical reports produced by petitioner pertaining to his father corroborates his evidence. RW-1 in the cross examination stated that since the father of petitioner was alive and hence she was not ready to join him. - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB MFA No. 5751 of 2021

16. Undisputedly, petitioner is the only son to his parents. His mother was a cancer patient and died due to the same in 2013. Father is aged about 72 years, suffering from ill health. Under such circumstances, it was duty of petitioner to take care of them. It was his legal and moral duty. Preventing the same by the respondent would definitely amounts to cruelty.

17. Looking to the evidence of both the parties, it can be inferred that respondent making such allegations against the father of the petitioner was only with an intention to reside separately from the parents of petitioner.

18. Respondent alleged that petitioner and his parents harassed her for sake of dowry. She gave the particulars of dowry given to petitioner. Except self serving statement, she had not produced any materials to show that her parents purchased them and gave to the petitioner. If her parents purchased them to give them to petitioner, then there should be receipts or records about - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB MFA No. 5751 of 2021 the payment of the amount of one Kg of gold, five kgs of silver and household articles, etc. Even there is no evidence to show that her parents purchased car to give it to the petitioner.

19. RW-1 in the cross examination stated that it was second marriage to both of them and it was a simple marriage. She also admits that her husband was good but father-in-law was not good. If her husband resides separately then only she is ready to join him. She makes allegation against husband in one breath and says that he was good and also say that she is ready to live with him. These facts corroborate the contention of petitioner that those allegation were made to force him to live separately and fulfill her demands.

20. Respondent even did not examine her parents to show that they purchased gold, silver, diamond ornaments, car and household articles to give to petitioner so also their financial status. They are competent witnesses to corroborate the case of the respondent. For - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB MFA No. 5751 of 2021 the reasons best known to the respondent they were not examined.

21. The trial Judge appreciated the evidence of both the parties and came to a right conclusion. Forcing husband to reside away from his aged and ailing parents or not to take care of them or making false allegation about demand of dowry and the payment of dowry without substantiating them and filing of false complaint to the police against husband and his family members, definitely amounts to cruelty. The petitioner during pendency of this case had produced records pertaining to divorce proceedings initiated by first husband of respondent. The allegation in the said petition shows that respondent had some psychological problems and her brain was not developed proportionate to her age. This might be the reasons for lack of compatibility between husband and wife. Of course, the husband had not taken this ground for divorce. - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB MFA No. 5751 of 2021

22. Undisputedly, from 2014 both are residing separately. It appears that the relationship between them has irretrievably broken down. Considering all these facts, the learned trial Judge granted the decree of divorce.

23. For the above said reasons, there were sufficient materials to grant the decree of divorce to the petitioner. Considering the same, the trial court granted the relief. We do not find any reasons to interfere in the same.

24. For the aforesaid discussion, we answer the above point in the negative and pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 09.01.2020 passed by the Principal Judge, Family court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.700/2014 is confirmed. - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:44818-DB MFA No. 5751 of 2021 Registry is directed to send back the records along with the copy of the judgment to the trial court. All the pending I.As stands disposed off. Sd/- (SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 19 Sl No.: 6