R. Swapna vs P. Ravi

Rathnakala, J.

The judgment and decree dated 8.1.2013 passed in M.C. No. 58/2008 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, K.G.F., thereby allowing the petition of the husband and granting decree of divorce against the wife/appellant herein under the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (''the Act'' for brevity), is under challenge in this appeal.

The appellant is the aggrieved wife. The respondent/husband filed the petition before the court below contending that the parties were married on 18.4.2008 at K.G.F. as per Christian rites and resided together for a period of 20 days at his residence. During this period, the wife was not co-operative and pin-pricking him with sarcastic comments. The husband left K.G.F. on 8.5.2008 to attend to his duty as a Member of Central Industrial Security Force, Kerala. He came to know that the wife was sick and was taking treatment at St. John''s Hospital, Bangalore, which fact was not disclosed to him at the time of marriage. His consent for the marriage was not out of his free consent. In view of the fraud and misrepresentation played on him, he paid Rs. 25,000/- to the wife to join employment in Health Department, Kuppam. Now she is working and drawing sumptuous salary. She started showing hostility towards him and his family members. She was not punctual in returning to home after work. She used to come home late. She ignored his advises to avoid causing tension and anxiety to his family members. She insisted him to desert his family and join her at Kuppam. His efforts for reconciliation through his family members failed. He issued a legal notice on 18.6.2008 but she sent untenable reply. Her brothers and relatives created unwarranted scene near the workshop main gate and proclaimed to put him behind the bar on a false complaint to the Police. Her persons manhandled and belittled him in front of his colleagues and public. Now she is indulged in alleging of dowry harassment against him and his family members.

The case was contested by the wife denying the entire allegations levelled in the petition except for admitting the relationship. The defence set up was, her marriage with the husband was negotiated with an understanding that the husband would construct a separate residence for her on his property at Kuppam. During the marriage, gold jewels and household articles worth of Rs. 1,50,000/- were given and they are in the custody of the husband. She was harassed by the husband and his family members from the first day of the marriage. They demanded dowry from her. She works as a ANM (Multipurpose Health Worker Female) from 17.12.2007. She has worked hard for the family of the husband, but still they ill-treated her.

Parties entered into trial and were examined as PW-1 and RW-1 respectively. After giving audience to both, the court below allowed the petition by dissolving the marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce.

Sri. Puttige R. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, at the instance of the husband, the wife took up the job as a Nurse at Kuppam. She conceived from the marriage and delivered a child. The court below by acting on his stray admission during her cross-examination has come to the conclusion that she was dictating the husband. Before reaching to such conclusion, the court ought to have explored the possibility of amicable settlement. None of the grounds for divorce as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act were available for the husband. The petition is filed within four months of solemnization of the marriage. The only ground urged in the petition is ''cruelty''. But admittedly subsequent to the marriage, the parties lived together for 20 days only, thereafter both of them resumed their respective official duties. That being so, the question of wife inflicting cruelty on the husband does not arise. Hence, the judgment of the court below suffers from infirmities, hence, not legal and the same is liable to be set aside.

Respondent/husband served but unrepresented.

In the light of the above submission and on perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, it emanates that the court below merely summarized a portion of the evidence adduced by the parties and reiterated a portion of the cross- examination evidence of the wife and draws inference that she is a demanding wife, insisted her husband to come and stay in her native place which amounted to cruelty and desertion. The ground invoked by the court below to dissolve the marriage is under the provisions of Section 10(1)(x) of the Act, which reads as under:

"Section 10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage.-

(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent

(i).........

(x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent."

But we are unable to comprehend from the evidence on record how the acts alleged against the wife would amount to cruelty, which was so harmful and injurious for the husband to live with her during their short stay together. It was an admitted fact between the parties that subsequent to the marriage, with the consent of the husband only the wife joined service as a Nurse. She was working at a remote place viz, Kangondi, which is 18 kilo meters from Kuppam in Andhra Pradesh State. She has fairly stated that if the husband comes and stays at Kuppam, she is ready to stay with him and she cannot shift to the place if he is working in some other place. In the course of cross-examination, she stated that she is not prepared to disclose in the open court, which were the differences between herself and her husband. It is also a fact that the husband had purchased a residential site at Kuppam even prior to his marriage. Immediately two months after the marriage, husband has issued legal notice and within two months thereafter this petition is filed. He categorically admitted during cross-examination that during their stay together for 20 days, the respondent was cordial with him and his family members. Though he denies that he has sold away the gold ornaments of the wife has admitted that a Panchayat was held in his house regarding selling away of the gold ornaments. On his own admission, he reported back to duty on 28.5.2008; again on 18.7.2008, there was a Panchayat at the residence of the wife about setting up a separate residence. He does not whisper anything about the child born out of the wedlock.

There is no bridge between the acts alleged against the wife and the grounds available under Section 10(1)(x) of the Act. In our considered opinion, the evidence on record is insufficient to draw conclusion either way under Section 10(1)(x) of the Act. Hence, we deem it fit that parties shall be afforded further opportunity to place on record all the evidence at their disposal, so that it can take the case to its logical end.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

The judgment and decree dated 8.1.2013 passed in M.C. No. 58/2008 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, K.G.F., is hereby set aside.

The matter stands remanded back to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, K.G.F. for fresh adjudication, with a direction to permit the appellant/wife to adduce further evidence, if so requested by filing necessary application, with liberty to the husband to lead rebuttal evidence.

Without waiting for notice from the Family Court, both the parties are directed to appear before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, K.G.F., on 27.7.2015 at 11.00 a.m. either personally or through their Counsel.

In view of disposal of this case, I.A. No. 3/2013 filed for maintenance does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous.

Registry is directed to transmit the entire original records to the jurisdictional Trial Court, forthwith.