C.S. Raju Gouda vs Smt. Vanitha

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the Appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and order dared 18/08/2007 passed in M.C. No. 41/2003 by the Judge, Family Court, Mysore, wherein, the Appellant has filed a petition u/s 13(1)(ia) and (ib) under Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case are:

The Appellant and Respondent are the husband and wife, their marriage was solemnized on 24.5.1991 at K.R. Nagar, as per Hindu customs and rights, they lived peacefully for a period of two years and out of the said wedlock, they got one female child. It is the further case of the Appellant that, after the marriage, he took the Respondent to Mysore, stayed in a rented house at that time, she started giving trouble to him and she even refused to cook the breakfast, to him. All efforts made by him to change her mental set. up went in vain and without any reasons, she left his house, went to her parental house and refused to join him. It is the case of the Appellant that, he came from a respectable family, working in Police Department and without any reasons, only at the instigation of other persons who are inimical with him, Respondent has given a false complaint alleging second marriage and also filed a petition u/s 498-A of IPC for harassment of dowry and the said proceedings are ended in an acquittal. Thereafter, again, Appellant has made sincere efforts to continue to live with the Respondent, but it went in vain. Therefore, he has filed a petition before the Family Court for dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Family Court. The Family Court, in turn, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on file, has dismissed the said petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Appellant has presented this appeal.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned Counsel for Respondent.

Learned Counsel for Appellant, at the outset submitted that, inspite of making sincere efforts by the Appellant, Respondent has refused to join him and she intentionally and deliberately filed, a complaint against the Appellant alleging second marriage and also filed a criminal petition u/s 498-A of IPC alleging dowry harassment and both the said petitions have ended in acquittal. But these materials which are available on record ought to have been considered by the Family Court while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, she submitted that, impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court is liable to be modified.

As against this, learned Counsel for the Respondent, inter-alia contended and supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court. Further, he submitted that, the Family Court after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and after recording a finding of fact that the Appellant has failed to make out a ground to grant a decree of divorce and dismissed the said petition and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.

After having heard learned Counsel for both the parties and after careful perusal of the original records available on file, including the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

Whether the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court is sustainable in law?

It is not in dispute that, both the Appellant and the Respondent are the husband and wife and they got one child out of their wedlock. It is the case of the Appellant that, inspite of making sincere efforts to live with the Respondent, she refused to join him and even she refused to cook the breakfast It is also the case of the Appellant that, Respondent has falsely filed a complaint against him alleging second marriage and she has also filed a petition u/s 498-A of IPC for dowry harassment and both the said proceedings have been ended in acquittal. The Family Court, taking into consideration this aspect of the matter and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has recorded the finding of fact that, these aspects do not amounts to cruelty, the Appellant has failed to make out a case to consider the relief sought by him and dismissed the petition filed for divorce. The said reasoning given by the Family Court for dismissal of the petition is just and rationales and therefore, interference by this Court in the well considered order passed by the Family Court is not called for. Nor we find nay good grounds, as such made out by the Appellant to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. Hence, we decline to entertain this appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Appellant is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.