Karnataka High Court
S Prasanna Kumar vs R Saraswathi on 22 January, 2009
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 KARNATAKA 109, 2009 (4) ALJ (NOC) 780 (KAR.), 2009 (3) AIR KANT HCR 177, 2009 A I H C 2089, 2009 (2) KANTLJ 633, (2009) 2 KANT LJ 663, (2009) 79 ALLINDCAS 376 (KAR), 2009 (79) ALLINDCAS 376, (2009) ILR (KANT) 878, (2009) 4 KCCR 2729, (2009) 2 HINDULR 79, (2009) 3 ICC 206, (2009) 3 CIVLJ 232
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna
fiantagsag flaw 'V 33;; 'R§a§, Emgalore $
2; is the getitzion avxarzzaazztsf zmrzage
,, 5a,n§'é'a?§G:1g'* aftar the marriage partgea iivefi
"~___4:@g}e:13é:< __ 3in the izmzse éf the fathex mg the
§§:;§.:t;i;§ne$ maxi ateiy after the zzmriage
"~.' '::iZ'Q%§3_.}r$§1€§&2'1'C-'ft«?".:'§.,fé dafisarzdeé yetjntiazzar ta §é.£"E"£i'E; hex'
_ ta fiarztzizzzga Em: Stmiiés since ghe Wag atuafying in
2
file sf the X1 Addlg Fri. Jufiqe, Ea;1:g;.~';*3:
Eaxigalare, dismissing 'the petition fi3_.ér:i -»t;j}mT
aygeilant herein under sec.13{1){ia)H_{_ii;..3 ®;_é;f- tha' '
§:':'.1*..nfl*:z Idarxiage I-mt: seeicamg ci,e¢:I: eg pf d§.v§z:9;£:,. '
'$123.5 Appeal is cazaing aria' ii' a¥:iz:;i'3§ia'z': :"LL..ti2:';i;;.a
day} zvsmaumm J'. delivered the 'f;ofi--'Ewin9.'? 3. «. « ~. 2
J U 3 G"1si}.s: ii '13" V
W-..--.....':
Appeliazat was t1i2:;é 1: Adasn
Q.z~:L Jfidqe, Egsfily c§;iia&%:',:1 " ' Erie filed the
afaresmd Ega'am:f;V3;"3:':§i'j'pVV'V'iia§ fiib} Qf 'E133
fiindu Jigiize amiss': ta digs-give
the I2:a3§;;f.*iagé__Xsetweea the ap-gallant and
ra5pm3:§;e1fi;,_ 46:31 ' V, at Laiitmaahafi. Kalyana
'£313.-fiiies was [email protected]:m1:zad on l3.1i.1§33 at
(S/.
ii}
the parties were studying, husband wag ag.1;1_._i4c.i§V§;i? i'g ":;.x1
ES ccuxaeg wxfe had joined Btccnrn. xx .ar::k1'.
the marriage has net 'c.;tr:1s€u::n:;a§'{::L[£e?i VV t'Tt§c1i'«grh'
maxrriage was smlexmxized can
respondent was 3.2: the h¢a15$Ie.V_ of 'i:1;'_;eV t.i$,;:i;..
3.5.£5'.1999$ In ezuthg; wa;Vdgfl v.._£'a;f néaafly _;s:§:;:: yeazs though parties weré znaxxiage has not been c::»:1s§.mtff|a'ats?,:i';'*~... alleging that thfi m33--'3€3-%9'€«:. _'§i€17E account of the gonauc§__g$VV£act reuiains is that tha V < V'V::1r;s:'Vl:f.§ Vgz:>3°;s1;*r;;V:\z=zted . The aypellmit aj.,,;e§e25 ' g;i5:;1ai'i;V§§; "the respondent. In paxarfi at aha, pé£i_'§::L0r£', '*:'.,:: ' is pleaéed by him that the ~....,3:§$p£i-nclimt:-:wi£e«"iisié ta: come heme late from the ¢f.1;a;.s;.ses whiamh hag resulted 3.3: physical tésgftzxe. xnentai agczzy. if a spause after attenriixgg the coazputex amuse which she haé jained "#Vi;t: §:._ tha pe£:§L:i,$s.:i.on af the appellant was gaming igta, no czarurt man amid that it anzmmta ta mental. Fiartizxa anti crzielty since appellant in his evidence or in the pleading has net stated the timings cf rfv 15:3 aypeiiant to seak divorce on the gronnfi afi ae$exti¢n*
12. in the result, this apeal is é3am;gsédL_'~ Judgment an fiecxee of the §agulyV ¢a§rta*1fi M£7 "{xw "299/(>1 datad a . 3 . 2995 am hereby ' 9aties tc:baar their cagts.
322384: U