Sri A.C. Manohar vs Smt. S. Latha

N. Kumar, J.—This is the husband''s appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Nanjanagudu dismissing the petition filed by him for divorce on the ground of desertion. The petitioner married the respondent on 06.10.2003 at Sri Manjunatha Swamy Temple, Dharmasthala. After the marriage, the respondent joined the husband. In the year 2004, a boy was born. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the year 2004, the respondent went to her parental house without her husband''s permission. The petitioner went and brought her back which caused mental and physical cruelty. Again on 15.01.2006, her parents gave a bond to the Nanjangud Police Station and took their daughter to their house. However, thereafter she has not returned. On 15.01.2006 the respondent along with her child, clothes and jewels voluntarily left the company of the petitioner and she is residing with her parents. A panchayath was convened which was not accepted by the respondent and their family members. As the respondent is living at her parents place for nearly 6 years, she has no intention of joining the petitioner. Therefore, the petition was filed for divorce on the ground of desertion.

The respondent has filed a counter denying all the allegations in the petition. It is her specific case that the petitioner was insulting her because the marriage was performed in a temple. She was accused that she is short tempered, idiot and her sister is living in her parents house even after the marriage. He insults her parents. His grievance is that her parents have not given sufficient gold and silver ornaments. She was not treated properly. She was not shown to the doctor properly and only after obtaining the permission of the petitioner, she had been to her parents place for delivery. Thereafter, nobody came and took her back. In fact only after her parents sent her with 35 grams of gold and silver ornaments to her matrimonial home, she was allowed to get into their house and they all are with the petitioner. When her parents came during Shankranthi, he permitted them to take the respondent to their place and thereafter, she was not allowed to join him. The petitioners brother assaulted the respondent''s sister. A police complaint came to be lodged with the jurisdictional police. In fact the petitioner insisted that they should give an undertaking to the Nanjangud Police which they have given. She did not go to her parents house alone and she had been to her parents house with the permission of the petitioner and therefore, she submitted that there is no desertion on her part. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

i) Whether the petition for divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act can be allowed?

ii) What order?

The petitioner in order to substantiate his claim examined himself as P.W. 1. He examined two witnesses as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and produced the documents which are got marked as Exs. P.1 to 5. The respondent got herself examined as R.W. 1 and has produced 14 documents which are got marked as Exs. D.1 to D.14.

The trial Court on appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Suvarna Kom Ratnakar Shet Vs. Ratnakar Vinayak Shet, held that the case of desertion pleaded by the petitioner is not made out. Every time when the respondent has to go to her parents house, she had to take the permission of the petitioner. When her parents came to take her back, they were also made to execute the bond to the jurisdictional police and then they had taken her back. Therefore, no occasion had arisen for her to leave the matrimonial home and it is only when she was thrown out of her house, she had no other option but to go to her parents house and now that the petitioner has refused to take her back and therefore, the petition for divorce was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed.

Learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the very same grounds urged before the Court below.

We do not see any substance in any of them. The material on record discloses that the marriage is solemnized in Dharmasthala at Sri Manjunatha Swamy Temple which is an arranged married. A son is born within a year. The evidence on record shows that without the permission of the petitioner, the respondent had no liberty to go to her parents'' house. Every time, she had to take the permission. The evidence on record shows that, when her parents wanted to take her to their house, they were made to go to the police station, execute a bond and then only they were permitted to take her daughter back. Though the petitioner permitted the respondent to go to her parents'' house, he did not take the responsibility of going to the parent-in-laws house and bring her back. Every time she had come back and on one occasion, she had come back with silver and gold ornaments but still the petitioner seems to be not satisfied. The Court below on appreciation of the evidence on record has come to the conclusion there is absolutely no material or justification for the petitioner in deserting the respondent. Even if there is some misunderstanding, it is because, according to the petitioner, the parents of the respondent did not perform their marriage in a Choultry but, they have performed the marriage in a temple. They have also not spent considerable amount according to his likings.

In substance, as she is coming from poor family is the cause for ill treatment in the petitioner''s house. It is the petitioner, who is responsible for the respondent leaving his company and going to her parents'' house. It is the petitioner, who has deserted the respondent without any cause and a person, who is the cause for desertion, cannot maintain a petition for divorce on the ground of desertion as held by this Court in the aforesaid judgment as rightly referred to by the trial Court.

In that view of the matter, the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on legal evidence and in accordance with law and also in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. There is no merit. No grounds. Dismissed.