Karnataka High Court
Smt. Deepal Perla vs Sri Rashmin Perla S/O P H Rao on 15 February, 2018
Bench: Raghvendra S.Chauhan, S G Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3592/2013(FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. DEEPAL PERLA @ DEEPAL GANDHI
D/O CHANDRAKANTH GANDHI
AGED 41 YEARS
ESTEEM GARDENIA, NO 202 MARI HOLD
SAHAKARANAGARA, BANGALORE 560092
... APPELLANT
(By Sri: AMBRISH B.N., FOR SANTOSH S NAGARALE, ADV)
AND
SRI RASHMIN PERLA, S/O P H RAO
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO 102, STERLING PLACE,
MOYENVILLA ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN
SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 025
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri : MURTHY DAYANAND NAYAK, ADV)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED:1.3.2013 PASSED IN M.C NO.628/2010 ON THE
2
FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
U/SEC 13(1)(I), (I-A) & (I-B) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE
ACT.
THIS MFA IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the grant of a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband, Mr. Rashmin Perla, by the judgment and decree dated 01-03-2013, passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, the appellant-wife, Smt.Deepal Perla @ Deepal Gandhi, has approached this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married at Mumbai on 24-01-1996, according to the Hindu rites and customs. After their marriage, they stayed in Bangalore. During the course of the marriage, on 29-11-1996 they were blessed with a son. However, due to the differences which arose between the parties, on 01-08-2004, allegedly the 3 appellant-wife left the matrimonial home. Subsequently, the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, ('the Act' for short). In order to buttress his case, the respondent examined two witnesses, and submitted twenty three documents. In order to contest the case, the appellant examined herself as a witness, and submitted seven documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Family Court granted the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
3. Mr.Santhosh S. Nagarale, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following pleas before this Court:-
Firstly, the respondent had filed a divorce petition on the ground of desertion, cruelty and adultery allegedly committed by the appellant. However, the respondent could not prove the ground of adultery before the learned Family Court. Therefore, the learned Family Court was not 4 justified in granting a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent.
Secondly, the learned Family Court has erred in relying on the testimony of Mr.Dev Prasad Reddy (P.W.2) in order to conclude that the appellant had confessed about her extra-marital affairs with one Mr.Viney Verma in front of the said witness. According to the learned counsel, Mr. Reddy (P.W.2) happens to be an interested witness as he was a business partner of the respondent. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.2 could not be relied upon in order to establish the alleged adultery on behalf of the appellant.
Lastly, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, but not on the basis of the cogent and convincing evidence. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree deserve to be set aside by this Court.5
4. On the other hand, Mr. Murthy Dayanand Nayak, the learned counsel for the respondent, has raised the following counter-contentions:-
Firstly, the respondent had filed the divorce petition on the grounds of desertion, cruelty and adultery. He has succeeded in establishing all the three grounds through cogent evidence.
Secondly, even if for the sake of argument, it were to be accepted that the respondent has failed to establish the ground of adultery, even then, the respondent has succeeded in establishing the other two grounds, namely of cruelty and desertion. Hence, there is sufficient basis for the learned Family Court to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment and decree.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and decree, and considered the 6 record submitted before this Court, and examined the impugned judgment and decree.
6. Admittedly, the divorce suit had been filed on three grounds, namely cruelty, desertion, and adultery. In order to establish the ground of adultery, the respondent had also examined Mr. Reddy (PW.2). According to the testimony of Mr. Reddy (P.W.2), he was a common friend of the respondent, and the appellant. He had known them for about eight years. According to his testimony, the appellant had made a confession with regard to her extra- marital affair. Since the witness is known to both the parties, the learned counsel for the appellant is unjustified in claiming that the witness happens to be an interested one who would necessarily depose in favour of the respondent. Since he is a common friend, he is a neutral witness. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt his testimony, especially when the said witness was subjected to long cross-examination. Yet, the appellant has failed to shatter the testimony of the said witness, or to create 7 sufficient doubt about the trustworthiness of the said witness. Therefore, the learned Family Court is certainly justified in relying upon the testimony of Mr.Dev Prasad Reddy (P.W.2).
7. So far as ground of desertion is concerned, the appellant did claim in her examination-in-chief that since she was subjected to cruelty, and she had been insulted in front of her parents by the respondent, therefore, she had no other option but to leave the matrimonial home. However, she has failed to substantiate her pleas. For she has failed to examine her parents as witnesses. Thus, her submission has not been supported by any testimony of her parents. Moreover, although she claims that she was short of money and without job, and that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home in 2004, but from 2004 till 2010, the year in which divorce petition was filed by the respondent-husband, in these six years, she has neither filed a complaint against the respondent before the police, nor before the Women Commission, with regard to alleged 8 acts of cruelty, nor even filed an application for maintenance against the respondent. The studied silence, over the alleged acts of cruelty by the husband, speaks volumes about the weakness of her defense. Thus, the learned Family Court was justified in concluding that the appellant had failed to establish her plea that she was forced out of her matrimonial home.
8. Admittedly, the appellant had left the matrimonial home in 2004, and had not returned to the matrimonial home, or co-habited with the respondent for six long years. She had not even made an effort to re-join her husband. Thus, both the factum and intention to desert the respondent are rather obvious. Therefore, the learned Family Court was justified in concluding that desertion is well established by the respondent.
9. There is no requirement of law that all the grounds for seeking divorce, as mentioned by a party, need to be established. Even if one or two of the grounds, out of many pleaded by the parties, are established, it would be 9 sufficient for granting a decree of divorce. Even if it is accepted, for the sake of argument, that the ground of adultery has not been established, although there is sufficient evidence to establish the same, even then, the respondent has succeeded in establishing the ground of desertion.
10. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. This appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-*