Sri.Durgappa Sb Kallappa Dematti, Age: 32 years, 0cc: Business v. Smt.Manjula

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.LMANJUNATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH MFA.NO.23250/2009 IFCj BETWEEN: Sri. Durgappa Sb Kallappa Dematti, Age: 32 years, 0cc: Business, R/o Plot No.6, Shahu Nagar, Belgaum. (By Sri. Srinand A.Pachhapure, Advocate) AND: Smt. Manjula W/o Durgappa Dematti, Age: 24 years, 0cc: Household work, R/o Sarakari Mane, At: Kodachawad, Tat: Khanapur, Dist: Belgaum. ..APPELLANT (Respondent - Served) ...RESPONDENT This MFA filed u/s 19(1) of Family Court Act, 1984, against judgment and order dated 03.07.2009 passed in -2- MC No.41/2007 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Belgaum, dismissing the petition filed under Section 13(1)(lb) of Hindu Manlage Act. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, RAW MALIMATH, J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT The case made out is that the marriage of the appellant respondent was solemnized

11.06.1998 at Belgaum. They lived together for a coupie of months. Thereafter, the wife started picking up quarrels with the family members of the appellant on the ground that the appellant is poor and incapabie of maintaining her and the Income of her father is ten times more than the income of the appeiiant. During the month of January 1999, the wife without informing anybody left matrlmoniai home and since then she Is residing with her parents at Kodachawad village. The appellant made hectic efforts to bring back the respondent and asked her to Join him. That there is no cohabItation between them since January 1999. Under these circumstances, the husband flied a petition under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu -3- Marriage Act, 1955 seeking to dissolve his marriage with the respondent. By the impugned order, the petition was dismissed. Hence, the appeal by the husband.

#2. The Court below considered the evidence let in by the husband as well as by the wife. The cross- examination of the husband was taken into consideration wherein he has stated that even if the respondent is ready to stay with the petitioner, he is not ready to take her to the house of the petitioner. It is also suggested that he is having an illegal intimacy with one Yashoda and hence, the wife was driven out of the house. Based on the statement made by the husband in the cross-examination, the Court below came to the conclusion that the case made out by the husband is false and cannot be accepted. That the allegations of ill-treatment, etc are of all false and under these circumstances, the Court below dismissed the petition. -4-

#3. On considering the contention of the appellant and going through the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that there is no error committed by the Court below in dismissing the petition. The husband has miserably failed to establish his case against his wife. That in the cross-examination itself he has stated that the wife never refused to go to the house of the appellant and even though the wife is willing, the appellant is not ready and willing to take her to his house. In view of the evidence of the husband itself, we are of the considered view that the petition filed by him lacks merits and has been rightly dismissed by the Court below. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground to entertain this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. prs* rv1i Sd! JUDGE