Karnataka High Court
Jagadish Basavaneppa Durgad vs Smt Jayashree @ Bangarevva on 23 May, 2012
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DAT ED THIS THE 23 DAY CF MAY 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.LMANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
MFA.NO. 2tL20JjQI
BETWEEN:
Jagadish Basavaneppa Durgad,
Age: 45 years, 0cc: Agriculture,
R/o Aladkatti, Tq. & Dist: Haven.
APPELLANT
(By SrLFVPatU, Advocate)
AND:
1. SmtJayashree @ Bangarevva,
W/o Jagadesh Durgad,
Age: 38 ye ars, 0cc: House wife,
R/o Aiadkatti, T & Dist: Haven,
'at C, a iaaeaoca aoe
Laxmi Electricals works,
Haven Taluk Office,
e ri
2. Mahadevappa Veerabasappa Halgeri,
Age: 49 years, 0cc: Eectric Work,
-2-
R/o near Haven Office, Haven,
Dist: Haven.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Srl.M.S.Haravl, Advocate for Ri
Srl.Ravl N.Chlkkaradder, Advocate for R2)
This MFA flied u/s 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, against
the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2008 passed In
M.C.No.24/1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (SD), Haven,
rejecting the application.
This appeal coming on for hearing this day,
K.LManJunath, 3., delIvered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appellant Is challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Haven dated 01.09.2008 passed In M.C.No.24/1995.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder:
The appellant is the husband of the Vt respondent. The marriage was solemnized between them on 0 a I, S 'I' sea F S *9 , It g z • S 2' I ii V ijiji 1W a e -----4-
Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Respondents 1 and 2 were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 respectively.
The Trial Court after considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove the allegation of adultery. Accordingly, the petition filed by the appellant for grant of decree of divorce came to be dismissed. Challenging the legalIty and correctness of the same, the present appeal is flied.
4. Mr. F.V. PatlI, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court did not appreciate the documentary evidence placed by the appellant, whIch discloses that the respondents are living in adultery. According to him, the wife of the 2 respondent has flied a petition for maintenance on the ground that the 2' respondent is iiving in adultery with the l respondent and therefore, the Trial Court was required to grant a decree of divorce.
cS-S -5-
5. HavIng heard the learned counsel for the parties, what has to be considered by us in this appeal is whether the appellant has proved that the respondents 1 and 2 are living In adultery In order to grant decree of divorce.
6. Except the self-serving testimony of the appellant, no evidence has been let-in to show that the respondents are living in adultery. When an allegation of aduitery Is made, the burden is heavy on the appellant to show that the respondents 1 and 2 are living adulterous life. Admittedly, respondents 1 and 2 are the children born to two sisters. The relationship is like the brother and sister. Merely because the wife of the respondent has filed a separate maintenance petition alleging that the respondents 1 and 2 are living together cannot be a ground to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of aduitery. The Trial Court considering the material on record passed a detailed order, which is just and proper. According to us, the appreciation of evidence by the Court 3 0I o• m •0 c.
• 0
-o* a
n --
:bJ
a
3 , U,
'Pt
0 Z
UI.
0; 0
a -" t
m m
0;
-- -'
' a m
m
>
C a
z 3 'Pt
i0 z.
m
z. 3
m m
a)
a)
Lxi Lxi U)
ag a
g
w
1?
-I