Karnataka High Court
Sri B Gangadhara vs Smt. M Nagarathnamma on 20 June, 2013
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JUNE 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
M.F.A. NO.2276/2013
BETWEEN :
Sri.B.Gangadhara,
S/o.Late Boraiah,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at.No.16, 10th Cross,
Gajanana Nagar,
Hegganahalli Cross,
Sunkadakatte,
Bangalore-560 091. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri.S.Ismail Zabiulla, Adv. for
Sri.K.N.Subba Reddy, Adv.,)
AND :
Smt.M.Nagarathnamma,
W/o.B.Gangadhara,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at.No.33, 1st Floor,
5th Cross, Devegowda
Block, Audugodi,
Bangalore-60030.
Presently working as:
-2-
Second Division Assistant
Office of the Joint Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes (Admn)
DVO IV, Koramangala, VTK II
Bangalore-560 030. ...RESPONDENT
. . . .`
This M.F.A. is filed under Section 19(1) of Family
Courts Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 07-
02-2013 passed in M.C.No.1999/2010 on the file of the
II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore.,
dismissing the petition filed U/Sec.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act.
This M.F.A. coming on for orders, this day,
N.Kumar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the husband challenging the order passed by the Family Court dismissing the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the petition before the Family Court.
-3-
3. The petitioner - Sri.B.Gangadhara married the respondent - Smt.M.Nagarathnamma on 23-06-1988 at Kannika Parameshwari Temple, Malleshwaram, Bangalore. After the marriage they started to live together at Srinagar, Bangalore. The daughter by name G.Pushpa and a son by name Puneeth were born on 20-04-1989 and 30-08-1992 respectively. The case of the petitioner is some time after the marriage the respondent used to degrade the petitioner in the house and also in public view. He thought if there is a change of residence, the respondent may become normal and accordingly he shifted to a rented premises bearing No.33, 1st floor, 5th Block, Devegowda Block, Adugodi, Bangalore. After change of residence the respondent kept quite for sometime. Thereafter, she started to behave in an unusual way. She used to pick up quarrel and tease the petitioner in front of the neighbours. She is working as a Second Division Assistant in the Department of Commercial Taxes. She is getting a -4- salary of Rs.13,000/- per month. Gold ornaments worth about Rs.3 lakhs was given to the respondent by the parents of the petitioner at the time of marriage. The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of the respondent in Jana Pragathi Credit Co- operative Society, Adugodi, Bangalore. The petitioner is getting a monthly pension of Rs.1,433/-. When he questioned, the respondent used to abuse the petitioner stating that she is still in service and the petitioner has retired from service. She exhibited an attitude that the petitioner should be at her command. She was not cooking food in time. She was not washing the clothes of the petitioner. She is not bothered about the welfare of the daughter. She was not serving food to the petitioner. She continued to tease the petitioner in the residence as well as in public view. Without informing the petitioner she used to leave for the house of her parents and used to remain there for days together. When these acts were questioned, she used to shout at the petitioner. When the same attitude was questioned by elders, she used to tender oral apology, and she -5- continued to abuse the petitioner in foul language and totally stopped cooking food. She used to threaten the petitioner that her brother has contacts with local political leaders. Her brother M.Srinivas Murthy was meddling with the day-to-day affairs of the family of the petitioner. The petitioner could not tolerate the acts and omissions of the respondent and therefore he left the company of the respondent and presently he is staying in the house of his uncle. He is under fear of threat and therefore he preferred a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage.
4. The respondent after service of notice entered appearance and filed statement of objections. She admits the marriage, staying at Srinagar after the marriage and subsequently shifting to Audugodi. Her specific case is the children are under her care and custody and the petitioner has not evinced interest to take care of the children, the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement. She denies the allegations -6- touching cruelty and therefore she sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the aforesaid pleadings, the Family Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner has established that subsequent to his marriage with the respondent he was subjected to cruelty and if so she is entitled to the relief under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act?
2. (What order?
6. The petitioner in order to substantiate his claim examined himself as PW-1 and produced 17 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the respondent, she was examined as RW-1.
7. The learned Family Court Judge on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the evidence on record discloses that till June 2011, the relationship between the parties was very cordial. Further evidence discloses that till June 2011 he was in contact with the children i.e., even after -7- the filing of the petition for divorce. Though there may be some truth in the allegations in the petition regarding an attempt to dominate him by the wife, which will not constitute an act of Cruelty and these kinds of abuses are normal wear and tear in the family and that cannot be a ground for dissolution of marriage and accordingly he has dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order of the Family Court, the present appeal is filed.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the impugned order contends that the petitioner has retired from service. He is getting a pension of hardly a sum of Rs.1,433/-, whereas the wife is still continuing in service, drawing a salary of Rs.13,000/-. She is not cooking food, she is not washing clothes of the husband, she is not giving respect to him and he is humiliated and therefore these acts would constitute cruelty. In support of his contention he relies on the decision in case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 and contends that a case of cruelty is made out. -8-
9. We do not see any substance in any of those contentions. In the aforesaid judgment after reviewing the entire case law on the point, the Apex Court has held that to constitute cruelty the conduct complained of should be 'grave and weighty' so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner's spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life. The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. The cruelty complained of should be of the type so as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be -9- impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress. The Apex Court has cautioned the Courts dealing with these petitions and wants the Courts to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. Every matrimonial conduct which may cause annoyance to the other may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life may also not amount to cruelty.
10. In the instant case, the parties are happily married. A son and daughter are born. At the request of the wife, the husband has shifted the family from Srinagar to Audugodi. Both of them are employed. Now the petitioner has taken voluntarily retirement.
- 10 -
Probably, that may be one of the cause for misunderstanding which, both of them are not speaking to before the Court. Now the petitioner has to depend on his pension, whereas, the respondent continues to be in service and drawing a salary of Rs.13,000/-. It is she, who is taking care of the children and their education. Having regard to the income of the family, probably the same being not sufficient, she appears to be dependent on her brothers. The husband seems to expect that the wife should wash his clothes, cook the food for him, provide food whenever he demands, she should also respect him and she should not quarrel with him, she should not abuse him under any circumstances. He has forgotten now that he has retired. He has all the time in the world, if he chooses to take responsibility of the family, he can cook food, wash his own clothes and he can serve the food to the family. The wife is compelled to work, to take care of the family, has to cook food and leave the house for work and after coming back from work, again she has to cook food and serve her family. If there is
- 11 -
any slightest deviation, which is found fault with, naturally in the aforesaid circumstances. if she looses her balance and quarrels with the husband, that is quite natural. That cannot become a ground for divorce. That is what the Supreme Court says the normal wear and tear of married life. Unfortunately even after 60 years the petitioner has not reconciled to the fact that after retirement he has to depend on his wife and children for living. Having regard to the amount of pension he is getting, he cannot have a roof over his head and food, but still he is demanding all these things from his wife, who is otherwise busy in taking care of the children, attending to work and running the family. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the allegations made against the wife do not constitute cruelty, so as to dissolve the marriage that too at the age when the petitioner has crossed 60 years. One has to take into consideration the interest of the family. They have a son and daughter, who is yet to be married and if that is taken into consideration by the petitioner he would not have rushed to the Court to file this
- 12 -
petition, which would harm their interest also. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SPS