Smt. Hemavati Alias Umashri vs Mahalingappa Kurtakoti

B.V. Pinto, J.—This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 28.6.2010 passed in M.C. No. 3/2009 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge

& CJM, Dharwad allowing the application filed by the husband u/s 13(1)(1a)1(1b)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act and dissolving the marriage of

the petitioner with the respondent-wife. It is the case of the petitioner-husband that, after the marriage the respondent-wife has subjected him to

cruelty and also deserted the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the petitioner for dissolution of the marriage.

The Trial Court summoned the respondent before the Court and though the respondent appeared before the Court she has not contested the

matter after filing of the statement of objections. In the Statement of Objections the respondent has averred that the allegations of ill-treatment are

false and further that the petitioner himself has suppressed the fact of his earlier marriage with one Shivalila. She has stated that the petitioner was

subjecting her to ill-treatment in spite of getting Rs. 50,000/- as dowry and that she was driven out of her matrimonial house when she was

pregnant for 5 months. It is her further case that, on 29.3.2009 when she gave birth to a female baby by name Priyanka, again she was meted out

harassment by the petitioner-husband and she was not allowed to return to her matrimonial house. Hence, she has prayed for dismissal of the

petition for divorce.

Before the Trial Court the petitioner examined 3 witnesses as PW. 1 to PW. 3 and produced 5 documents as Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 5. However,

the respondent did not contest the matter nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of her stand taken in the Statement of

Objections.

The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence and the documents on record, by the impugned Judgment allowed the petition filed by the

husband on the ground of cruelty. However, the application on the ground of desertion has been rejected by the Trial Court.

Heard Sri G.N. Narasammanavar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod S. Paward, Learned Counsel for respondent.

It is seen from the judgment of the Trial Court that, the said judgment is devoid of merits of the case and also the learned Trial Judge has not

given any reasons as to why the finding has been arrived at stating that the appellant has meted out cruelty to the respondent. It is also seen that the

wife has not entered into witness box nor is examined nor has produced any documents in support of her case.

In view of the fact that the judgment is bereft of any reasons and having regard to the fact that the petitioner and respondent are young couple,

we deem it fit to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Judge and remand the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to decide the

matter afresh after hearing both parties, in accordance with law. Both the parties shall be given opportunity to adduce further evidence, if they so

desire, and file an application to that effect. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner and the respondent

are directed to appear before the Court below on 10.09.2012 and to take further instructions.

In the light of the above observations, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.