Karnataka High Court
Smt Shruthi Nagaraj vs Sri Nagaraj Krishna on 2 June, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A. NO.3814 OF 2017 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHRUTHI NAGARAJ
W/O NAGARAJ
D/O JAYADEV BAGODI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
NO.2, RAMANNA GARDEN
1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS
VIDYARANYAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 097.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. YOGESH, FOR
SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H. ADV.,(P/H)
AND:
SRI. NAGARAJ KRISHNA
S/O K. KRISHNA VARNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A NO.168, R.K. TOWNSHIP
YARANDANAHALLI, OFF JIGANI
BOMMASANDRA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 105.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT(P/H)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED:01.04.2017 PASSED IN M.C.NO.2122/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 13(I) (III) (A) & (B) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Acts, 1984, the appellant-wife has assailed the validity of the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017 passed by the Family Court, by which, the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13
(i)(iii)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed and the marriage between the parties has been dissolved on the grounds enumerated under Section 13 (i)(iii)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Facts giving raise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the marriage between the 3 parties was performed on 15.02.2009. The respondent herein viz., husband filed the petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on 09.07.2010 inter-alia on the ground that wife is suffering from a mental disorder to such an extent that he cannot live with her. It was further pleaded that appellant-wife is suffering from psychopathic disorder namely schizophrenia and has a split personality. It was also stated that the wife has treated the husband with mental cruelty of such a nature that it has caused him mental agony and anxiety. It was also pleaded that the appellant is under medication for mental infirmity namely bipolar disorder since prior to the marriage. The appellant has also received treatment for the aforesaid ailment. Further, it was pleaded that the appellant suppressed the fact that she was suffering from such an aliment and did not bring the same to the notice of the 4 respondent-husband. The respondent further sought for dissolution of marriage.
3. The appellant-wife filed objections in which the relationship between the parties was admitted. Further, the fact that there was no consummation of marriage was also admitted. It was denied that the respondent is suffering from any mental disorder or schizophrenia. It was also denied that she behaved abnormally and was under medication and treatment in NIMHANS hospital.
4. The Family Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the issues and recorded evidence. The respondent-husband got himself examined as PW.1 and one other witness namely Sri.Shivarama Varambally was examined as PW.2, whereas Doctor- Sri.Amar Bhavle, was examined as PW.3. The appellant-wife exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. The appellant 5 herein in support of her case examined herself as RW.1 and produced documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R12.
5. The Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017 inter-alia held that the appellant- wife was suffering from mental disorder/ schizophrenia and has treated the respondent- husband with mental cruelty. Accordingly, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Family Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant-wife was not suffering from any serious mental illness. It is further submitted that the appellant was put to mental agony and serious hardship due to attitude of the respondent in U.K. It is also submitted that the Family Court erred 6 in terming the mental agony inflicted by the respondent on the husband as a mental disorder and that the respondent failed to take care of the appellant by providing proper medical care. It is also submitted that the Family Court has failed to consider the evidence adduced by the appellant in its proper perspective. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-husband herein has referred to the evidence of doctor-Sri.Amar Bhavle- PW.3 and has submitted that the appellant herself in her deposition has admitted that she was taking treatment for mental infirmity in NIMHANS prior to the marriage. It was further submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is based on the meticulous appreciation of the records and does not call for any interference.
7
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
8. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.02.2009 and the same is not in dispute. Dr.Amar Bhavle PW.3 in his evidence has stated that he had given treatment to the appellant-wife since the year 2001. It has further been stated by PW.3 namely, an expert in mental illness that the appellant-wife was suffering from mental disorder/schizophrenia as well as bipolar disorder for which she received treatment from him. No suggestions have been put to by the aforesaid witness in the cross-examination so as to render the evidence of the aforesaid witness unreliable. On the other hand, it is pertinent to note that the appellant- wife in her deposition has admitted that she had 8 received treatment from Dr.Amar Bhavle PW3 since 2001.
9. The appellant-wife in her evidence has also admitted that she took treatment almost nine years prior to her marriage and has also admitted her out- patient record at NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore. The respondent in his evidence has stated that appellant- wife used to sing and dance in public places and used to behave abnormally. From the evidence adduced by the parties, it is evident that appellant-wife used to behave abnormally and it is not safe for the respondent to continue marital relationship with the appellant. From the evidence of the parties it is evident that the marriage has not been consummated and parties are residing separately since December, 2009. The Family Court on the basis of evidence on record has held that respondent-wife was suffering from mental disorder and schizophrenia and therefore, it was not possible for the respondent herein-husband 9 to lead a happy marital life with the appellant-wife. The Family Court on the basis of the evidence on record has held that the appellant-wife has inflicted mental cruelty on the respondent on account of her acts influenced by her mental disorder and has rightly dissolved the marriage between the parties.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any grounds to interference with the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017 passed by the Family Court. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RU Ct-nn