Karnataka High Court
Sri Uma Mahesh vs Smt Nethravathi on 31 May, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ar BANG LORL
I)\1I I IiIS 1116 Jfl\ 1111
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NK.
PATIL
AND
THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B,V. PINT
O
\IJ ,N01310121 j[
j
I ('thC€lI'
Si Urla Iihs
5I. I ae S 1')haIaIl
\gt(1 aboi :17
R/a '( 2476 3r. MaiL
)* Q 'as
K K ,
Mx. are (Hx,
9
iiiv Slirl V 1
h
ILS 1 a', I
13
r t \cthr 'val p
3 1 t \tfL,,i 1
\,,e I 6 at Ca
I [ 'a \ ''1 1
'tx 311a1133 IIC I I E
(hI,C
t Ma
a I I \ 3
is' Ii
) 54 a j
This MFA Is filed under SectIon 19(1) of
Hindu
Marriage Act and Section 104 R/w. Order 43 Rule
1 of CPC,
against the judgment and decree dated: 18/12/
20 10 passed
In M.C.No.241/2008 on the ifie of the Judge.
Family CouP,
Mysore. dismissing the petition flied U/S. 13(1
) (1-a)(1-b) of
Hindu Marriage Act. 11w decree of divorce on
the ground of
cruelty and desertion.
This MFA coming on for Hearing, this
N.K. Patti J., delivered the following: day.
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of the Impugned jud gment and order dated 18th December 2010, passed in M.C.No.241/2008, by the learned Judge, Fam ily Court.
Mysore. dismissing the petition filed by appella nt, under SectIon 13(1) (1-a) and (1-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
2. The brief facts of the case on hand as set out in the petition are that, the appellant and resp ondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 4th May 2003. at Pandit Narayan Choultry, Mys ore, as per the Flindu customs prevailing in their community. Thereafter. the respondent joined the )tl1l) i tic IPI1 cii I id Of_(1'( 15 Iiiisb'ii n I iii'1 lvitA' 'ii (lit' 11th 1 llflohIiihI fl'IIfl( I tic.. rc 'nond' in Ia cci ti'li the ap')ciIafll. WI the' 't lW a a ii it I )1 C Iii 1 f' 2 1k thaI a' It iaoy. it is the j'U 'flu c 'e ol tite pe11auit that. hen the % y 1 ,rderlL tailtd i u• beget 'Iiidrei. sin de t IC Ii i-n ii rcw ;llai,1 cii and st irted stavin&. ii. the Louse of hr .1 flrent. at Nanjaiiqud and nevei I)otherrci It returil to lht niitiiniuiiial hc)me t 1' ci ir. I ii lIt i,i 1 Liii 1 s 1 u t xr cas o Ii' app 3 1a it that his wif( 1 sulft. 1114 'run senni pny :11 disorder nnutlii:ittz In lit r iCI i]ifttp ,'Strhl md Ii ii 'it n tb 'I I) ii 11 , 1 irt Ii I I i L ii • nc 1,.ci iCil F? ''l r tic ( P5 rtd 'c ("l,LP., , tii ,;'ra' i •t ..p... ,!' 1 ) )'l(lcJ'. 1' 1 ti.lc iO * 1 '' (1 all I i I )IiL.i 11-- ,l.
-
1 ii
1
' I 'c. ,ji 1
i "• ,1 ii '-' • - .1
j•
.
.i•• • • • •
3
respondent and her parents were aware of the inherent defect suffered by the respondent, they have played fraud on him and through mis-representation and suppression of the fact that. she had not attained puberty and not undergoing monthly menstrual cycle. performed her marriage with him, and thereby cheated him. Further, it Is his case that the respondent from the day she joined him in the matrimonial home, started behaving In an Indifferent manner and she used to show hostile attitude towards him and his family members and never treated him and his family members with love and affection. In fact. a panchayat was also convened In this regard and according to the appellant. the panchayatdars and other close relatives who were present in the panchayath have taken the respondent and her family members to task for having suppressed the Inherent defect from which the respondent is suflering from and for performing her marriage with the appellant, by suppressing the said irthereni. defect. The .7
-- -t / --
5appellants further case is that the respondent and her mother suffered humiliation in the presence of the panchayatdars and having admitted the fact that her daughter had not attained puberty and not undergoing monthly menstrual cycle, admitted that she has suppressed that fact. while performing the marriage of the respondent with the appellant. Further. the mother of the respondent took the respondent to her house on the date of the panchayat itself i.e. during December 2005 and since then, the respondent Is staying with her mother in the house of her parents and there is no sort of any cohabitation between him and the respondent since then and the martial relationship between him and the respondent has been broken down, Irretrievably and there is no chance and possibility of reunion or resumption of the marital relationship between them.
3. When things stood thus. it. is stated that the respondent, in order to harass him and to take 'C i 11( an '( ei2ciiil'I flit €'j)pt'1k1111. Jt)dtbfI a 'nnpl iliit beloi t Sad€ur 'vtl au Kend ;i au C 'it Iu 1' Fcli ') jilt (1 1 3 ) 1 i s Ii ad Si i a' ilfid K rd 1 be I uc it' r d him t. p 'ek and on tht uilit z hand. '1r atcnt'd ini that thec votiki pro%ecute him t nier t:II%t' charge% d hr fails to cTre to take back the rnpoiident to l'lb i1o11'e nil ku i w'tltal lit 11 Ic 3112 t dtr I pn' I s ) 1 1 ii 1St f iSt tti)i c c1r% i-wi tic appealan. lot .ssucd . .cga. nt.tlt C B) Ii' P 1 % i Ofljfl_t and -us ' the oInri€ll% t f Sad-i,nt S'tlaih:a .en(eu.
.iI
r gaiding tutu lug!. banr!t' ttCt Ius a Is turn
ttc,idn' t 'urn he e '. Ufl i er I h r i
'1 1 t) C I "ilL I (1
1 trIll", 'I lf( r_rf 'ljti lIT' " .1 l .nI
[tj.
;'fr •1 'n lit .''.t 'ii •'':
.".'''.
a' 'i j
.4J, £ I ,,'e ci ii tilt ci ' ''1'') .
* --
'aft ' ii a •
'
% i 'I
• I • C. • •
1 N ' (Qe
'"II
g:( •: .'. ITI '•
I''i •tP •': tjI .:lL-- ,
, ..
ifl'! •.IeJ.. 1
ifi .111 I iI • 79 .11
I' I dJ
b
•
•'.. ;€' 'r i' ,u' i'n
•' U i•I• 'I n{?. I j •).lLc'jJ' hiLt --.Tj •i% .L"ti, II(I.Lt 11
.1' -T- flU 4ur.I )U.a .tlJ SII1t't. _j)flhI1 i!II,11e14111;
Ti t I .q iunjp.Ici ' •q' qi.i ..rumuI
'ii • ;'s TI 1) )tl io mad an IT 114 TI). aa4ttcl
iTS) I t )T ? 40 - 'I I )j. til io,ip,t ap
q ipx aoaijc k
•R) ,/t7N)jSJUT3 '-'1k' 'i
4 i ( U ) I iOI%1XhiIJ S )
1111 11111) ) .)LLl U )0Q )A
C .4) jtaicds i
qi Wüij d ii) 'II Jo a )J3) J) J)I U l tJI4a S
U''!aIldcI 1' ifl i'} ')
T
T
) %II
I'
)t U ,1'iL )II i'tI)JJ lLJILl..
jo lUtfl 1
.1L PUP TTIiIJI.)".)j) jo )U3JJ'' LflhtIOtUj.LjPLLI
iqj ILJ(ILILUUH' jt) AlTtIlfl %J )tj' H )LTI dull UIc).4
1t1(? thu Uj% '4 )T% TIOTu1L.hI .)LI4 10
'
11
P' .11111) cliii uioJJ
','lue 'ur .. • )Iu)(jl? •)-%ni11 %Il1 klaI .I'tT IIJJI)ILOd% U •)l
ckrnarcIinc In r for pc"rIl flit (f €Uhliti(tlhil 'Invrv mid
,iarted 11ara%sinL lie' mci ill trr 'tins lit U I i '--I t
1(1 t t,ili vt lbs il'%C C' •I
c(Il1 ft ul in I tic cipp( in n1 his p i i s
dnvt ii h". 0111 ol 'heii hou--.e by lililkink iii tin fa
u--mt I
that %'lt (11(1 flOl ' )1 Ce he even ,ijc"r kadmt rnant.mI Ill"
with the appellant for about three and i hilt w ir
Fuiher 1 1 bc' ',x'ik t fl'rt' r Ta m F
t jrn ii ,. s e " 1 i lien t, I C n r • tn n Ii I
i..roblem f-4ard1ng 1
.ne
u Aiist ( .' It' clrdi ci.irinE
'a4Cflhl)fr. 200a the appcilai't nhIn%eIl in.k her to
Hf .S 1
A
p n1 FIo%pltul iiki stilsjt''tt'c' RI to in' cP'aI
t\atflhl It'll b. U .'ii'st 13 II, a' ' Ii 11)'C' I
i'' Ii 1 %%f rt rr •'ia
i ii ii 'td p_n Ic 1 •'i vcsa n. ' r .m' h.i
5
t
a
1
L 'ltlt I iii i •th 'lur', 1, 1
c• "' s ;. i 1
,,
•0 • •' .
, • t'
.1
.1111 i•1't' I, I,' . ' •' 1 1 • ' I
L
F • I
I
' 1
I
I
L (Iii 1 • , j i
•iJ V ."Jc 4 ft iii a" I Li P
, j
p 'n" •: • i!.js Ii'IJII ir ,--r
'
1 t., !, a
jj r
•
LU 'taI '! ;' •' 'L 11 i,, i' - LJ ;Pjfl Td ; 4 1f1,:IP'4
s. '
I' -ST,1 I! )E'. 'j! --.1P•a )i III )Jt i
leT' '4 )LT -.IT%
t -at JJ IT l q j - )flTflPJ '! 4 114% .
t
,ht 1 J? .TiC,'
J')Pj) I tP 1(1 t'tt
P
-l j) 'J )(1 P11 1(4
JVUS( RI i'ra 4? Li )t jfl aPS fl U )M
jtTa.taLp I ur LU(,.IJ J3LLI 'dJIS i01 sj ;is r14j ixuu"l 04
eI;)Ia('. U'l (,IiIt (;P3J TsLlPIL$, .a(f 1)31.41111-fl LIojilid.) Jill
" ;uanb )qlt% iatj 1)1 3U11311) ).) JJl fPfl.IHtU LjI 1iJIflU3j
a I )I41-)1 )) fltTjA
1 UJ.%S IUI'fl.)d(lL' 1
aL
) JTL' tIIJ% 1)011 xl
p p,uin)pin fl(O?-'fla :-Tt (UC TIIIIIT1I.1Pr )J
) I II 1.) (ItlIC. I4I.J
• I lI)t 0 1
'( t) JP it %U WI iii 331 .1)14 ?L I1l)I 9 )S RI ( U 'i
4 -4 )i1 'p1 T( )(k.) I •MT
1 - jt(I Ut -If If) .flItMI L 3Jfl i LS%T
) rp
1
rnicIi)'pTc itt ii i(ktflhi
)ttttIflidO turd' tiii cn'r
tht rtsindei't shi fs i"ittIv al' tiaht aid she I 110
suteriiig tnun any inhrrt iii (k'tt'(t 1% jk'1 ilie ('J)iii('1l
tendc red h Ci Sudlia Rao 'f I harsh-- I tcsspital aflu
ac ) jns I ic ia R . Ii i aya Ic )f )qet a
lkhr But plir lx lf' tIhv
from her sudetv uid reIu%ed to colk bit with tier sht could nut coiicei e That irst-lt c anliol make a L'fl)Utl(i ciiid further she lw. dt. tied about Ii '1chn 4 in the :iit'-(I adai ! Ii ppIiait a] hcir 'r)es f hc a t flex icr I I tc t1',i a iii the Cu' til ii 1k' itiOii 11i 1 11cr a 1('t V toc,k lit hac k in hi r )an:jce 1 OIL' 'i1lr I!n n Iv ' i('%I.iIIlL! 'Ii tin p'in i:,,I,.f i at% !e t; i 1 12 •i tht.• LIca r 1 1 h' s.
a n)q thn Ii nrjqf't
1 lit I
I ii
•iic 1 ID j 1 1 'lb ' ' 'a 1
1¾1••, 3t .;riv ,•) .1I't. • I: •
II
having left with no other alternative, started residing with her parents at Nanjangud. It is her further allegation that several attempts were made to persuade the appellant and his parents to take her back to the matrimonial home and to lead the marital life with her, but the appellant refused to take her back to the matrimonial home and hence, she was forced to continue to stay In the house of her parents. According to her, she never committed any matrimonial àffence of desertion, since she never voluntarily deserted the appellant. But on the other hand, It was he. who has driven her out of his house and deserted her and started staying away from her and refused to take her back to the matrimonial home. thereby he is guilty of committing the matrimonial offence of desertion. She has also categorically denied the allegation that, she started treating her husband and other family members with cruelty and according to her. the appellant is trying to make out this ground, in order to obtain divorce from 1c . fli refo ( slit pravt(l few ch'nhi' ii "1 the petitiul £l((ll)Vttt cl)T) hint 1 ttl hnl 'irt.
. i)t.rnt f(1 idejic 4 iii' mallet. at!n' .j)1fl I IiOULh lit pl'c(ITQ 4 1) th rrtt I- ii Ttsclec Falnl) C urt ft i ivt"IIed slit matter ti concihatloii anti se eral ',iueere efforts v en niacie h Ut ( oru thatc r. A p i. it eport cit flit cot C 1 hldtflr%. tht ('Ofl( Ii ttk ii lalled cis tlit Il'isl'afl(i t ihc re%pv'ident. i lit aipel ii iL reusc I t) tih 1-i k )cck r '. ic it atnmornal liornc. I) ii insict-d on 1i nrc c nnlv on tl'e gro aid Cf her i iPrUlit j cb 'i 1 i w.,i I respondent c tine to the 1azns- c f ha hn% nanhl 10 Ie'd tl ' in' ntal iffi" II a ptlltni ii I c "a st dir Im 'ri Lit irpoi 4 ' e nt. Tk( iue (A ti s.iiUyirt '.'ael r?k 1 I:
fl Ii 'Pta a
1 iii
t 'i 'K'ttt'a 'a_i I nil •'it
i i Ic lid I. I ii ii •%( '
'C 1'' 1 i %Vl it) I tije iiI4t ' I'. Vjri'rr ,jc j--i
• s 1 '1 I ' i k i
t 41 I kb li I "S g •il g ti.
7) 1 91
.1
)',"? '• ,, 1'••
' :• ''
UI fl 41) J'.i ( )l U ii
Ii:'. 1
it 1s ) r,7) (1
II
•
1.1.1 .U •,).Js)fl'..j. 'iiI. "'l!i 1;sii :.j'..e'i
'1 c 7 c
( 1.P jc;j.,u$r,
'-' 117) ' ' " 'ii
'4 7)sfitjU.) ' 711 gUll,
7 11 '1 "p .1 t 71 it
4
31,11 7)cflhlis 1JL'LJ ) !it 74 71,11 JUt'RIISS'V.I1)14 It'
'3. 'C' 'flj Ir ' u.,1 130 U 114 I 4IIS
( N.
S1)l,1 3, 71 ii 77)11 Ica. 1 17)1,11 SB 74(1
puvqsmg ! ,311t)fllkWi .flp .zaipa1,..j 1
WOT J %P )IP
'[10! jI&1a1NtLO.' .10 S t1lt )d A iu', )3--111 patue.q 11110) ITLI I .zidp %Tqltp cix 31Ji £q I.)sltno aq.i rlui.n'.q unjr 1.'1J(? uaqj )t list j ii 53)1 g t .1)1133 1' .1311 JO JJ(h(I(jflQ UI P.'U1tL11"C3 091' '%RW ltL.pI1flCka I 41 ill II ' )1.( ITS % U I I L 7 ' ' 1 11 I'"I4PL1t i,z "
tt L' j _ 4 fl '1' iIs)%.t.hLI PM1IU1' M It )( L 7) )1. 'St 7 M.d
-,r ci r I ii n n 11 ic ii t ch'sc'r z'cnL 31 lo, u'hcu order arettil r dIUcatiQil t I Liii 'r'i1 'V1tIrflt'C (4 PWs I dfl(i 2 and RW1 rncI RW2 and tIttUflWfl(afl nden. e at Ex' Ii to 110 and F_x% Hi to R. thc Farnl1 'cur b s ,r'lçra wI rt ' i' .ird ha in. rii iC orth ui i o A u c t c'o'isideruP'ii thel a' 1w t A tp "T 'II 'v w'c' 'U fiirnllv members. ht' 1 iiis''ertcl Wi point Nos. 1 and 2 it tin. \ewilii.--' aiu porn' .o.3 d per the tInal uriltr. and ii ii 4f1 h pn or lcd H it apeIani lo i e t I a i I I ii d ia r St I ' u 1 1 ii i ii j - n ''tnt tn 'n tpf'e ! '' ' ' C- U' 1 sir ''L ' t a%,C1 .r;. ...1.: 4 ;.n1 r 'i' 'i j, d -- %t a1' 1:i.
''i' r r
t'. b a u 'I till I
I.
I 1 ' 1 1 '
(S
i. sc ' ti it ii )t t a z. L'Jy (ci i
lisni %j g in i in 11111 lb p 11111 it •i k -c
divot'' . hi'Idiiq.. that cti)l't [liii I Iiis t1lit'Li to rn thy out '
nnr rega'1in the inht'flhliiv hi the re%J)urlcIein wile 1n11
shc Is tint t ffl%1tJO i to u'ita P •
ho 1
sub%
t iattal
e thit
1 U TS% I 1U4(l 1 ir it lK
ctn /0111 'fl iii 3t I t d2t nnrr
2005 and Dr. Mala Dharmalinga'n dated I I" Dc eembc'r 2001 d% in Ex% P5 and P7 respeetii ely. dUd suhmjtt"cI 1iat the responderii Ji€p, undn 'tie (Id ailed n t._, h Al (KIT 10(15. 1) ci sis he rli ii t sadet 1 1 h i. in rc%x,ndt11l ia 1 rcrnaL t u C ar i 'a. ur tue (.tiI sIW t a r' c flll(fl Is riI 1\ F 4d.ni.,I • nuut.. t1, Jr for' i -n b( C (flU i'ict-i 1 L't ttn-- .; "ries of U a('VT)(I t ilt hi! _ 4 T L..' "I' r • ( i r 1 tc I C )t j •. ,Jt..j.. .i._ •.' •:' • % 1 t. • • --
I 'qi )xn ctsrth i lol Jino u t(flslC'(111 1)1(1 clb1 ir'1 Ci . I men-Is ac eptI ii c OI)I'UOfl V I )r. St'-Jh R to '1 LW 21: i€w 2006. liiih (Ji%(IC)%e% ihitt sin- i% grini' 1 ogLiIui p 1-ft ds clint there are i o 4 od (hatk( C C )t Ut)) LxU luTtnv C flh iiett ii p-n i I t prl r ' t 1 c 1. a I opinion urcn by Di Sucihi Rio is in lv vitli res wt t her niensinial cycle Theretore. 1k subniits ilat riD' avI opiaic'n itself Is not i'.iitfieieni ti' rtjtct th'- praytr SC) ci r ) tfl cr). ilant urde bi 101 1 (ill a) r Tr C 'it-I 1 t hl)P t thi ti I IS % uplt fl 1 IC it. C L V 1 1) 11 i C'.iIHl ('I flat t'I.il (-r'u-ilv -'li-i 'it'%e Ii''L f'ut j( ! C • 1 h .u 'lit rtsprti Ij'tIa 'itr' 1k"- it Ii t' L-'itst 'I ii.f tic gyr J ji't . fl it ' ' ii...! ia'is ' t t 1 ) * I ' t t U Ii I • ' a '7 Court is 1i'ibie tc be s t aside and th pnyer ought In the petition for a decree at dhorce ma3 be granted.
7. As against this. Shn P. Mahesha learned oun 1 appt innu to respondc it/will. Inter alia, C tc d I iii ubstanti ted he impipiel jucigmeit and order passed by Famflj Cm ft snting th 4 the same is a well-considered, well founded, well reasoned judgment, inasmuch as the same is passed after critical v$uc tion of the oral and documentary evidence r lalk or ilealdiel) ngc tie dgm n of hc Alex Co rt Furthc. he submts tht he F ml) Con- is also highly justified in dismissing the petition flied bv appellant on false and frivolous allegations and ass impUons and presumptions rhertfore, interference a e s t u if' b S ltccrfu'cwle tnlrn j ssorf the learntd '-oi'nsel appeiui 1k r flu partk tnd aftri critic al evaluation ot the in'pugned judgment and on_er I )€L5%td l)t ti I l'a nil) I. ( lit ilK o i14 1 1 1 ii I ii ( ft )Ui C )llSJdVi iii n is is to.
I itt, ',tl ;r(.' t iasivlc till CSE ii •iu'r 'TE't ' I it i îç sq it' JudqrllL in nrtd order passed mi 'lie Far rulzj ('nut r?
Alter earelul pci usa) of the impugned judgrntnt and nrdi passed by the Fainhl) Court and on trill 'al evaluation of the or'ghnal record available on We It Is mani& 't oil the lace of the imirupsed juOtzrient ptssvd In the Famih' Co'i'-t that. thcrr is no rror ol nateiial illcgal'i ;i. 'ueli enn'rnit ted by 't ii' 'ismhsng tYir I)etitla) 41. d alq)flhl.urit I: r ' dr'i"e Vt tlt -'iret It i %'grltk'.rtt to 'g'I' tlu tl'e ct In k Liflon h 1 qrinl'aiu is iqr a 'It''t c 0' Ii.L'(C r th r" ii • I i a ital jut t, (l i1 c 1 r . . 1))' i•I'it• • •I i'' ' le ....'' n' ti' 't! 4j: i tr •,.. L a•'t '' •'A itt I 1 I j tj .1'lt !. -- ch' L. t fl "1.1 :' t 1 1 II- I •J i 'I •' •1 fI•'% s. • • 4 i .. . . ) Iii. • '9 medical check-up regarding some physical disorder pertaining to reproductive system. In this regard. the appellant has produced documentary evidence of Dr. Anish Behl. at Ex.P5 and of Dr. Mala Dharmalingam at Ex.P7. From a perusal of the said documents. It emerges that the respondent wife was being referred to Dr. Anish Beffi of BGS Apollo Hospitals. Consultant Endocrinologist & Diabetologist and also Dr. Mala Dharmalingam. Professor & Endocrinologist, Endocrynology and Metabolism. M.S. Ramalah Medical College. Dr. Mala Dharmalingain, after conducting various tests, has opined that the respondent has premature ovarian failure. She can be put on OC and then planned assisted reproduction for pregnancy. This opinion Is given during December 2004. Dr. Anish Behl. after detailed medical check-up and tests, has opined that the respondent wife has premature ovarian failure. She needs to be on OCPs. The only way she can conceive is with WF + Donor eggs. This opinion Is / I p n ii lii iiçNt ti b 2X9 lit 't ir it i b s ii thai 1)i %ijdlni ltw. ( )nu1t'I1g flb%tetrkia:1 & sit ( 'iIuttst 4 Itarshal 1I.)%phI:;I. tihri (Inptai% in ti--lu CI ( I (I Pfl(flto)I Lii irilien audi' Xu I I 'hi i d lu g1n p in ii i rhc responilt nt has s'i'ii't'ci on 2 1" Ma 200(3 thai. the 1 respo d ent i is gcttIiu it'ular r inds awi tin re arc wind t IC(s or 'Ttl n sad D bid 1 Rat isprodi cdb rcr n°n a E H Ferto haviiis reeii'l in tht• rotaliiv cit the CA%C ir "an be 'Ofl'ltIdCd 'nat a ot'1 the 1etet ogthw't gin--n r i L1diR),h rp c itsi a. 'in I-
'did c'iil iK '.i Is p.b)d (itt I
("mt (- p1 ic,r. In liii it C .11! t!'C the iI ! .: t ;I r
ri' Iii "
F .. .ia L• til It. cp. q j. .aff,t --% t •.k
' It I .
4
'I t 1
L it '11 11 ii 1 1' 1
a' I .:;..1e a •b . ! --.I.' - I. I
' !._aI.• )'.. ..•:
.- s --
tIiit tir -(SI ;n'1'zi 1,' 11111 II (
)t.11 ) i. F, vi
1' i 'Cc) iit St )ltI(I)r
lhe lift eatIntL 1)1 the a.pt1lafll 1
cttl1: t
t'
T
(Sc41 ('flitfl! aile that
i' 'iii' list' C'flQt)' phv--i A!
disc rdei peildninu. 1) rc pro ii c Is S e 1 ii
4 flC 1 ft 1 r 1 lit I ) ) Aist ku wd Dr
Mala DhumaJngain to I)r.Suilha Ran. ssheu-ln 1)0th the Sd ci Dccrnrs Last opined that iju Ie,pnpdthpt Pac premature us irlan Irilur', slit t ii b N ) 1 0 ' It r iiaii ic I sssei if) o t (1 tcr pi r ixv ai( thai thw oils was sht ay ,n'eiv.- is wit I-i T', I- -' L)c )flC'l cjLLs Flu It )n Tic situ tha' tilt saud drte"t 'S ttiii)li "s ilvil diii Elic lit it'd) Si k't I 1 t 1 ( p r Lh(
1)1) II S q 1 ,t 1 'd( tic "I31' tf 1 1'1L iC t'.(I% ' jt 411(1 la( (U •t"
14 4 )( '1 1 t 1 p C; lj I ml!' C • .1 1
r
- 15% li' ii'4itI 1' ' 11% i i ret 1 11 I • ii. .
.-- i_ • • • ' treated to be mental cruelty or desertion. Further. the
Pamily Court has observed that the appellant and reb a rtli d gctiei is i. on! tic Ad' * a ctt one year and nine monthb and there w&i° cohat Itatlon between them. Except making the allegation of cruelty nd deser ion te at ret on lent . he 'appellant F as not idducd any oral 'vi lence f hIs 1 mU members to substantiate the same nor has established the same by aidi , 4 Cifl my indepencient in nesses he appellint tfmseif ha admitted n I is crc s xamlnitic t at he led marital life with the respondent and they lived t getne as husband and i e for about one year nine Iorhn9fr ira 'Ii ere 1% edit a to the conclusion that the marriage was in fact.
% iccc ssf ii and consummated during the qajd period
d cso nkt lot in
about the reMpondeilt Jut bet aast- the rtspondent
Md me minor ia"dzc.il pmbkm and 'was not
mu i c et r .
that the %i1)(1 jitobleni Is a erni;trii'nt :flc and on that
drolijid rhe appellant aniic,r take ,tchaizt.ur 1)1 ii and
flit thi. p ;ition for a (irrrce wtl dwc'r e on w-c.iincl' ni
enidt ubi Llt"drtioll L)ut '.oine ntinr'r irtuiul--rn UI ilit
0 flieS. tit rt 9 Ofl.ltMt Ut)-. ,D)t ablt V, coii ne but.
as pt i thc winion of Di Suclha Rao. train 2006
t Ti IT S it ('Sf)O id'r is ..et iii.. fici ngt la ret ods
t cst ILL,) C ff( S I bflj
)i
) I ri a b e a eFmti
I-as 1 i -e t dial ig-dic tsr
itra suit by relyn ti le IS ) I 1
11)111)1 CX (ouit ad licid U at I Ii n is ulu il o
tIi-- Lift ot tlit• elti t') '4(USt ii liw lit V it S iil
oth'r lp(-ti'n 'I u nid' n" ti' V in' iT ItbtY at tr '
1w1n2 ifl k al :r'
!'Ifl '
1 'ra;i' : 't'I rt-,s%:'n
I '3 Eat 11" ji."ij ii £ i; (, tt,' ,
t
1t(.r c.t. :1%.' • •11 --
lilt w :'i it iT,'j jt I-- 'Jjf:!I'.qqJL. cl •a1' :
1
pt,j j% •tj
q ii :a"r--rL .._ .,!-,;.l((.: LI' 'i • I ,
.0 :e I'. •t• i. • .1 I' ! •,
''',
•:. -- : i. .
;:' ••s •
24
wife for about one year nine months after marriage.
That means, the maniage between appellant and respondent consummated and they cohabited. Simp ly because the respondent was unable to conceive, may not be a ground for the appellant to urge that her Inability to conceive amounted to mental crue lty.
Admittedly, they led marital life for about one year nine months and never complained that she was unfit for sexual Intercourse. Further. there Is no such allegation made either in the petition or in the affidavit. Furt her, the appellant also never branded the respondent wife as an Impotent person nor filed any petition seeking nulli ty of the marriage on the ground of her impo tency.
Therefore, the Family Court observed that mere barrenness and sterility would not amount to impotency. Impotence means Incapacity for accomplishing the act of sexual intercourse. Impotency has to be distinguished from sterility associated with it.
Further, the Family Court observed that even thou gh c the liNflnfld( lit %d% 1101 di)Jc t' fl)flCf1t title 10 (1K mm tic VcJS £ 1lais I. hi f liavine t uai int''n nur. . ttioiuth mica lwanTlg . hilcirt ii
- t. )1 ci t if not imntueI in bilug m the idea '--wrffitv Cu iflnlpflrit3 01 )flC tic )Ot '\ t C 1W ill rff s ifl( dl)dCIfl o 1i i 4 ' normal sevti€d Inte.cnuie.
Theretore tilt Ftniii Court eame 1') Lhe conclusion tl at
er lot ti rId aç an, o b tn g
%t)lflt problem or null hinr'iional o'.arles tiii rt us no
fl tc .) fl 11 3& It
'annol. be It' id to br trouaci br divnic t on tlw Wflhhlld
cr t t c i oci
• ''Jlj1lai iJii'' ü
4 u. iii.-; i'c! ih1fli ii Iii'- In, tr'ntir •,ne
cii liii lT( us is ü it; ii
n p. tin' r ,n J (1)t ,ia%l '11(1' r.' 31_flt'( t i'' i\
)'
i 1 I ' fl. tT'e' ')IL&
111 1 i' S Ii h £ los
I!l ItfIf l '. -- l ti a, • .( Lb II
ala iii toP) 1 'sn' wt
%irlre her nit il%Lrt1a1 £ "cli ws tin' ri etl'ai Bitt. tftn
..fr)l'lt tllfljttsJi tile ('.itiz ;iit l%%tit gJ h !H.Sipltnj FZao.
is t- f'_. l C C (. I it •uf (1 I( C I.. Ii •iI
ri U nt ii i sroiil'z i& iii r su ir ti od .1 1
lhcr( LIt 1' 'fl1 (tlaTlCf% of t on tption. Tlwrelnrr. the
pjsllant .''iii lot ha C €1 I fl nc' c)flCC I eii.irdi ug
r i. r fiat ' Ic 1%
1'. Firthe I I jert w I ) lot ii it'
.illeg.uu'u ol the ippdhutt 's that a panc1iaal1i a' ililt ent ci rlurme I)ec CLflIX 1' 200a and tier % bait t pt.r"II •r'i I_i F IT Ir 11(1 1 ntili t)r)Ict(clluIiws )ilLt '11 1,011' t her n 11't% bruit. t'jiabk t(, ' q111 ' 1 :1 _% I ht 1
p ;1*r j ii_'Ili ( 1 1t V • ii F tiii' Ii sJ, • ?fl Lit' U ) £ .
4 js ft % '1.;II sr 1
at ;( i 'Id% )t lI t I IL *1
II. g' !I.-- 4
..I
'wii.a',
. .•,.' ;j. I. .'I. ttt
I ,, 1 ,: • • f• I. • , I
nbs'rvttl that th' nichnite cf ?2 caimni be Drllt T(1
:11 (1 1 (cliii i 1 1 dcl ti it (lit i .111 fltS f ti .s%pnlkkflt
iiili iPi'i (di%IIIii '(ii i1t
t vhtii t trluilii it
b t al ilu utht ha. ci 'e Pt ci tr I belt rd (lit
cntei Ut 'ii ol tlit- I r%periddn' that .iiter coi isulUr Di
Anish BetI. then the appellant came to know that flu
rt'poiidrnt wa siiflëring from some problem anti hrnee
qhe cannot c ow'ewe. dcc icit- ci in kt- p lit-i- .n mci
ac ordi g n h (sOr it it (l 11n I') II 4h tie
- ; n i nt, ci it i i h I 1Sf )f
liarii ii tie 1 Ft i I
s-ui that I 'W2 ia '
ink rn 'cc' ft thc I'€- it N4 - i.
lht'. --ii- o'cl'.ig In Ins - udt ut . '-k" lit p$ts
' tlr
liou. I ii:' a
1
.,l;lx
rlt lI titirnit D. c '--nil-c ' 'G') %fli!h
j''s*'Lt1 i ' '-- j1
;n ..:. ,;t ,'ç 1p'.u%r ''I In'
0 1 4%I ). Cd Ibc i -1 1' • I •n-iI t.h E.Ik -- 4
ii 6 * J(- • 1 Ti ( ' ' '' 1 'I ' ' r. 3
I I.
lit%.) I kit ttiiiUT liii
ipwliradiii 1)1(1 iii' %it1t
hi p ii tic q*itccl iii liii aILi ffl '% Evtn 'i
:ii;peliarir IWVCI (lj%j '('St"l ti tidBit ol PW2 •'nd n'vc'
1 Coflttfltir.fl tlw! he prtc iii iii thr satlu
( 1% ft ii c '( Ti I c ci In pa U ip tic i i 1W..
it t ir 1i Ie)l r U 1 1 1 1 1 ( .1 t I
lieu & 111% cliii I csainitntion thus tli rru1y Cc in
1 ightl dt%beIievc'd the t'videiiee ol' I-'W2. 1 hen--fore. I lie ap Han. rantini take a 'laud l;iit the respondent nas 'ill atalir ci ernnil'do1tioird Ii ii I ' ' r I; uni i a i' rleai i ii' i ri .a •' iden 1 1 i%1 'ccl 'a !UtcIl ii' • it (' t' 94 i.'i!€' t.;
p' "::; .11111
e I')'.P j)?,g it, j'ci_. iVl iri .r1j .
iii £ 1' h't It 1'' 1 I 1' (I -
1 cit t i b
11' iIri 1' 1 I ccl•'
I • • .t,, ,.f :..:'c .a 1 ' ' a
•'
1 •'i, 'Il --
• '. I. : 1 ' (i3L it Tjj jl%
• 1 1 1)11 a
1
1
T 1 •a)
iht ). I
t"'' ' '0' %'
tTlftj,_
T
1
;. -1 t• I'll' t'
T
lLfl • ' 1'UIU'
fU"4T1k1ll4 1%l(1) )j) 11)1K,
)) I i Iti ) ())
j
ui 'I ) 41 TQ t1tt\ IT'H)ifl)Op
put. ivio a j. UO.2PflJPAi f
1l M1TL•• iai,,,t S UJ IT
%lth,Ipd .IL( 4') )S'LOLT
'1l 'ii IiI 14'J Pitt? pfliH.I4T1flN 0.1 IUJ1)TI( t.kai 'n
ittP[iadtir 411) ) tj%IU 'J(J M4 Uoflittio a'paiii flhIflJi
tqjr 1t4j pt )p so kat aqi jo u )LJuaIUo) aqi pMdann pun p tag q'iic '44'$'t)tP1 NJ W(JJlil3i 1 .4J ' .Jl(i I I j ; 'qi .i I it dd .) i
- I )T TI 'tIC 'p 1. 31 111)0') P iT AJit ,j )ifl S flit I )L1l T " flUe U' .iat1C)L a ' •i1 P' P''M .P 1 iieq 'X--
I') hal, ..t{l flILJJ)IkSliU_) Li p: ., )1jt'U )i J tid Ml] tad 'P ) 1 LU1Ifl(I%3J J JUL •q paTicial S M .1111)11 U$J[ I a )IIUTIJ)LIIVLU T.'t( AI!d C;) TU.Ij iP PIUJfl '3 )UJT IIt' I.' 30 on her own volition and own will. Considering the fact that. the appellant never made any efforts to take the respondent back to his mat rimonlal home and filed the divorce petition even having no courtesy to issue a legal notice to her, about the filing of the divorce petition, clearly discloses his conduct and hence, It cannot be held that he is at fault and because of his omission In taking back his wife to his matrimonial home. It can be concluded that the appellant is guilty of committing the matrimonial offence of desertion towards the respondent.
15. Further, It is relevant to note that during the cross-examination, a suggestion was put to him stating that the respondent wife Is even at that time, ready and willing to go with him and to lead martial life with him and he has categorically stated declining that offer stating that he is not willing to take her with him and lead martial life with her. In fact. the respondent while filing her objections also has taken up a similar / '40 jbOtitefltl(,fl it b,tit hei rdadlne%% a'i'l illIntnt S tO loin her l1u%bar d and lead marital life uiih him. Bitt. uIF has bet ii ('attiLOriCa'1 rrftist-'l l)V jttt• sppill.mt lili%baIId. I bert foie. h'vtiie n'gard to all tlwse asptet% the Family Cciii l.ts obst'rvnl that 11w ppelIanI has fc tied 0 pic vt tho Iactnrn 1 Ii sertlon .ini also Llrnrnzzs ci s rczcl s it 1 csflhlsled tiat a himself wts I soi %iblc fo ct p ii. I yft. fl . f )fl urn nil frte te tce tk ck I 13Cr aI)T 31L 9 uitll hrlb hilt?. ii •it$i Ii 'ilu .. ( uduc t W. ru'tli i fit i n thy C 'ii t "
s ret 'ci 1 )
Strt'nn 23 (a' (,t tsi \'T Vl1(' ti t
4 P iflJU'L C fl.t
•N ( t 1"' annnu
(.U. 1
i w .1. 1 ljf in '
I'r'c r
is)' 1 iV 'i.' t ha' 1" ; --.i1%hc-c rh'j t c' tird '',.
6' I!tlh.... Inc ri iu I t' jsl ''jil ibt tt
;Ii.'. in
1
p '! li'ii'.i :
.': 71'?! P v r . kt 1. r i,% ( • .' p
I . ),. s • f'... ,).:j--.•' , I •t. ;;' ,p
I
having left the respondent wife and kc eping her a'% ay fr in m vlevinsherm the ott ofher at ats nd nei er bothered to take her hick to the matrimonial home and haimg waited for more than two years, has c w p cIth the livotce nltion igai 41 her seek ng divorce, holding her responsible for staying away from him uintb coisdnel r t apellat trmg to take advantage of his own wrong and hence he Is lcfaflyno cxi kit ocny cli as rndedu her at aforesaid provision of the Act.
17. hu . vi wea from any ngle. in. ar ol the cot sidered opinion thu th F mU) Coin tak' 'ig into consideration all the relevant aspects. has passed a well c slice ii t250 ltd elfoidt Ji mnt hence, we are of the firm opinion that the appellant has f d a 0 a a f tot, c c dliorre. by stilng aside the impugned judgment and orer ndncr e. uc is oi stif at nt gi nt h relief ou"ht jr th caped ncr lii c 1 '1) tn-or ot 0' U illegality as such in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court.
18. In the light of the discussion made above, the appeal filed by appellant stands dismissed as devoid of merits, with costs of Z5,000/-, payable to the respondent/wife, by way of Demand Draft, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, the respondent/wife is at liberty to recover the same, in accordance with law.
Sd!-
JUDGE Sd! BMV JUDGE