D. Sumithra vs S.T. Chandregowda

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 7-11-2008 passed by the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Hassan, in MC No. 37/2003 allowing the husband''s petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by dissolving the marriage performed on 29-5-1981 the wife has filed the present appeal.

For the sake of convenience the parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Court below.

The case of the respondent-husband is that he married appellant-wife on 29-5-1981 at Kadur. They have no issues out of the wedlock. After the marriage they lived together till 1999 at Hassan. The husband was employed in the Department of Excise. The wife was looking after the family matters. It is his case that she was wasting money and neglected the affairs of the family. That she was making payments to her brother, sister and parents. Therefore, she was assisting her sister who was constructing the house behind the back of the respondent-husband. She has neglected her marital obligations. When he was required to go on night duty, she prevented him. She used to abuse him. When he used to speak to the women colleagues, she was unnecessarily suspecting his fidelity. She would call his office and abuse the office staff. On one occasion she visited his office and created a commotion and behaved rudely with his colleagues. She was mixing sleeping tablets and pesticides in the food and coffee given to him. On 22-2-2002 she left the house by leaving a letter. She took away 400 grams of gold and 1 KG. of silver with her. Thereafter she sent her sister''s husband and other goondas to his house and threatened him with his life. She lodged a case before the Pension Mohalla Police. She has given a paper publication with an intention to insult him. Inspite of intervention by the elders and several panchayat''s she has failed to live with her husband. The husband has suffered a lot of mental and physical cruelty. His reputation and dignity in the society is greatly damaged. Hence he filed the instant petition before the court below seeking divorce. On service of notice the wife appeared and denied the averments. She contended that because of the ill-treatment meted out by her husband she was forced to leave her husband. That she left the house on account of the threat to her life and not with any other intention. She has denied the other allegations.

The Court below on considering the contentions, framed 4 issues for consideration. It held that the ground of desertion is not proved but the respondent-husband has proved that the wife has failed to discharge her marital obligations and he has suffered mental and physical cruelty on account of the behaviour of the respondent-wife. Consequently, the husband''s petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent performed on 29-5-1981 was dissolved. Aggrieved by the same, the wife has filed the present appeal.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. The lower Court has committed an error in granting the decree of divorce. That the lower Court failed to consider her case that the respondent-husband has failed to establish the ground of cruelty. Under these circumstances, he pleads that the appeal be allowed by setting aside the Judgment under appeal.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent defends the impugned order. He contends that there is no error that calls for any interference. That the husband has established his case of cruelty against the wife that he was living separately for almost a decade now and she pleads that the appeal be dismissed.

With regard to the issue whether the husband has proved that he has suffered mental and physical cruelty on account of the conduct of the wife and her failure to discharge marital obligations the Court held in favour of the husband. In doing so, it relied on various material produced by the husband. The evidence of the wife was relied on. In her evidence she admits the fact that she has filed a police complaint against the husband alleging dowry harassment. That she has alleged an illicit relationship of the husband with another woman and FIR was lodged to the said effect. It was marked as Ex. P-11. She has deposed therein to the said fact that she was advised by the Doctor that since her husband was suffering from T.B. she should not go near him. She admits that she has given complaint to the Women''s Commission, Bangalore on 8-10-2003 against her husband. The lower court therefore concluded that the allegations of dowry harassment have been raised by the wife only after she has deserted her husband. That they have lived together for 18 years. She has filed a complaint against her husband only after she left her house after 18 years. Even so far as the statement of the wife that the husband was suffering from T.B., is not supported by any evidence.

The plea of the husband is that the wife was making reckless and baseless allegations against him. That she has lodged a complaint that he is having an illicit relationship with another woman. She has admitted so in her complaint Ex. P-11. She has also admitted that she has made a statement before the press regarding his conduct which is marked as Ex. P-10. That her denial is not supported by any evidence to contradict or disprove the contents of Ex. P-10. Ex. P-10 is the paper publication and it contains the statements made by her. All these facts would clearly show that on account of indifferent and harsh attitude of the respondent-wife, the husband has suffered substantial mental cruelty and mental agony has been meted out by the wife consistently and persistently. There is substantial mental agony suffered by the husband. His wife is the cause for mental agony and cruelty. The evidence of the wife clearly admits to her conduct. She has admitted to the complaints filed by her and the deposition made by her in the criminal case making reckless allegations against her husband and making a complaint to the Women''s Commission. That the mental agony and cruelty has been inflicted by the wife-appellant on the husband. We are of the considered view that the reasoning adopted by the lower Court is just and acceptable. The same is based on material evidence on record. We do not find any error that calls for any interference.

Even though substantial efforts were made by this Court to reconcile both the parties, the same did not come through.

We are of the view that in view of the mental cruelty inflicted by the wife and that they have lived apart for such a long passage of time and in view of the fact that that there is no physical relationship between them ever since then, and that the wife has come out of her matrimonial home and she has failed to discharge her marital obligations, no purpose would be served in keeping the marriage intact.

In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal. The lower Court on considering the plea of the parties has rightly come to the conclusion that the question of desertion was not proved. We are of the considered view that the finding recorded against the husband on his issue is just and appropriate and does not call for any interference. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.