M. Prithvi Ullasa vs Reshma N.R.

P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J—This appeal is preferred by the appellant -husband calling in question the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2014 in M.C. No. 1463/2010 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, dissolving his marriage solemnized with the respondent.

Facts of the case leading to filing of a petition by the wife are, appellant - husband is a non-resident Indian residing at Abu Dhabi, UAE. Respondent is an Engineer employed with BOSCH India Limited, stationed at Bengaluru. Marriage alliance was proposed through a common friend and solemnized on 24.6.2007 at Madikeri.

Right from the first day of her stay in the matrimonial home, the respondent was ill treated by the appellant with a grievance that a Car and dowry was not given during marriage. Appellant displayed a suspicious mind right on the first night by asking her if she has slept with any other person. After seven days of marriage, the couple came from Kushalnagar to Bengaluru and the appellant left for his work place, UAE informing the respondent that he would take her to his work place only if a Car and Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash was given. After his departure, his father was calling respondent on phone and demanding for money. Respondent''s family acceded to the demands and in all gave a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- and a ''Santro'' Car to the appellant. With continued harassment, respondent was forced to lodge a complaint against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 506 IPC read with Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, respondent filed the instant petition under sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. (''Act'' for short).

Appellant contested the petition denying petition averments. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent and 14 documents marked. On behalf of the appellant, 4 witnesses were examined and 4 documents marked. Family Court on consideration of the material on record, allowed the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) dissolving the marriage and dismissed the petition under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act. Hence, this appeal.

Heard Sri M.S. Prakash, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Sachidananda, learned counsel for Caveator/Respondent No. 1.

Learned Counsel for the appellant - husband assailing the impugned judgment vehemently contends that the family Court erred in coming to the conclusion that appellant had inflicted cruelty upon the respondent as there was absolutely no evidence on record to support the said conclusion. Appellant is well placed in UAE and always ready and willing to live with the respondent. On the other hand, it was the respondent who had refused to join him. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and accordingly prays for allowing this appeal.

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supporting the impugned Judgment and Decree submits that the appellant and his family members started inflicting cruelty from the very first day of her stay in the matrimonial home. Appellant exhibited his suspicious nature and behaviour on the nuptial night by questioning her chastity. Within a week after the marriage, he left for his place of work and never applied for a family visa. Further, learned Counsel assailed the manner in which the respondent was cross - examined by the appellant. He made specific reference to the suggestion made by the appellant suggesting that the respondent had a ''close relation'' with one Ramachandra at the time of marriage. He further pointed out that another suggestion made with regard to an SMS sent by one Srinivas on the Valentine''s Day displayed odious mind of the appellant. In sum and substance, he argued that the appellant and his family members had precisely behaved in a manner which fulfilled the ingredients of Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Act. He submits that leveling disgusting allegations of unchastity amounts to cruelty. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and examined material papers.

Facts of this case are in very narrow compass. Incontrovertible facts discernable from the material on record are solemnization of marriage on 26.4.2007, departure of appellant to UAE within a week therefrom, transfer of Rs. 1,48,000/- to the appellant through western Union Money Transfer and display of demeaning attitude while cross - examining the respondent.

P.W.2 is brother of respondent. He has stated in his evidence that he had assisted respondent to send a sum of Rs. 1,48,000/-. In addition, to corroborate the payments made by the respondent, she has produced loan agreement - Ex. P8 and the loan statement - Ex. P9. The material on record clearly discloses that, no efforts were made by the appellant to take respondent to his place of work in UAE. Appellant has admitted in his evidence that from the date of his marriage till the date of his deposition before the family Court, he had not applied to his employer for a spouse VISA.

Family Court has framed two points for its'' consideration. The first one is with regard to infliction of cruelty and the second is about proof of desertion. While answering these points, family Court has dealt with the oral testimony of parties in extenso and finally answered the point with regard to infliction of cruelty in the affirmative and the point regarding desertion in the negative.

The family Court, adverting to the evidence of P.W. 1 has noted that it was suggested to the respondent that she was having a close relationship with Ramachandra of Indian Institute of Science at the time of marriage and thereafter. It has also noted a suggestion with regard to an SMS sent by one Srinivas on the Valentine''s Day.

A careful analysis of the facts of the case leads us to following irresistible inferences:--

"(i) that the appellant who left the country a week after the marriage never made any attempt to have a marital home at the place of his work UAE;

(ii) that the questions posed and suggested by the appellant to the respondent - wife during cross - examination clearly indicate that the appellant was not only entertaining a lurking suspicion with regard to the chastity of his wife but displayed the same in an ignominious manner;

(iii) that the tenor of cross - examination of the respondent by the appellant strengthens the pleadings of the respondent with regard to leveling indecent allegations;"

We hold that leveling unsubstantiated allegations touching upon the chastity of a lady tantamounts to infliction of cruelty. We may usefully refer to a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate Vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, AIR 2003 SC 2462 : (2003) 1 DMC 685 : (2003) 4 JT 85 : (2003) 4 SCALE 134 : (2003) 6 SCC 334 : (2003) 3 SCR 607 : (2003) 2 UJ 947 : (2003) AIRSCW 2530 : (2003) 3 Supreme 416 , wherein it is held as follows:

"7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extramarital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible."

Thus, in the light of evidence of PW1, PW2 and RW1 and above ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in our considered view, appellant is guilty of inflicting cruelty upon the respondent. Hence, no exception can be taken to the conclusion arrived at by the learned family Court in allowing the petition filed by the respondent dissolving the marriage.

In the result, this appeal fails being devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed without any order as to costs.