D PARTHASARATHY Vs. VINAYAPRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts act, 1984 arise out of the common judgment passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, in mc. Nos. 318/93 and 586/1996 dated 24. 7. 1999.

(2.) THE parties would be referred to with reference to the rank in MC. No. 318/93 before the Family Court.

(3.) THE facts of the case in brief leading up to these appeals are as follows: the petitioner-husband filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage with the respondent performed on 8. 3. 1992 on the ground of cruelty. It is averred in the petition filed on 23. 4 1993 that the petitioner and respondent were married on 8. 3. 1992 at Bangalore. The petitioner has studied upto SSLC, and respondent has studied upto B. A. It is averred that, after marriage petitioner and respondent went to the house of the respondent. During night, respondent asked the petitioner regarding the educational qualitication and the petitioner told her that he had studied upto SSLC and the respondent asked the petitioner to pursue his studies and when the petitioner told that he cannot do at that stage, respondent warned him not to go near her and told that she does not like the petitioner and that she is loving some other boy. It is further averred that on 9. 3. 92 respondent told the petitioner that she was not willing to marry her and it was only on account of the force of her father she had married him. Further, on 10. 3. 1992 when the petitioner asked his father-in-law as to why he has told that he has studied upto B. A. , his father-in-law told he lied to get her married. The petitioner requested his father-in-law to send the respondent to his house, for which he refused and when the petitioner called the respondent to go with him to their house, she also refused saying that she cannot go to that place which is a slum. Again petitioner requested the respondent to go with him to his house on 11,3. 92 and respondent told him that she cannot even put her left foot in his house and without any reason she removed her mangalasutra and threw it away. It is further averred that the house of the petitioner was vacant and respondent refused to live with the petitioner in the said house and as advised by his father-in-law the petitioner let-out the house. Further the respondent insisted that petitioner should close-down his book selling business and accordingly petitioner closed his business which caused loss of rs. 40,000/- which he had invested in the said business. It is further averred that the nuptial ceremony was performed during the month of June, 1992, the respondent did not allow the petitioner to go panchayat was convened and as per the decision of the panchayat, respondent was asked to stay with the petitioner in his brother's house and as they could not live together there also, on 18. 11. 1992 respondent returned to her father's place. It is further averred that one day after four months after the marriage, the petitioner was invited to the house of the respondent for tiffin. While he was eating tiffin his mother-in-law came and teased. him and respondent also joined her. It is further averred that the respondent did not permit the petitioner to accompany her to Dharmasthala, the petitioner was not even invited to the Gowri festival as per custom and despite all efforts made by Prof. Hiriyannaiah and his wife to settle the matter amicably, the respondent refused to live with the petitioner. It is further averred that on 25. 12. 1992 at about 7. 30 pm ten goondas who were drunked attempted to kill the petitioner and tried to forcibly take away the petitioner's car. However, the petitioner has ascaped from the danger due to the timely help of neighbours and friends. He lodged a complaint on 29. 12. 1992 with Kamakshipalya police and he gave an endorsement that the dispute is of a civil nature. It is further averred that on 5. 1. 1993 and 6. 1. 1993, petitioner, respondent and relatives were called to the Basaveshwarnagar Police Station and the Circle Inspector asked then to live amicably and petitioner and respondent stayed in the house of his brother D. Narayanappa in separate rooms and respondent did not permit the petitioner to enter her room and threatened that she will consume poison and commit suicide throwing the blame on the petitioner. During the said period of stay, she never cooked or served the food to her husband and she had no regard to him and finally on 24. 1. 1993 the father of the respondent took her back, since then she was residing with her parents. It is further averred that the respondent never treated the petitioner like a dutiful hindu wife, the marriage has not been consummated, she never treated him as a husband. Respondent and her family members have treated the petitioner with utmost cruelty and it is impossible for them to live together as husband and wife and wherefore the petitioner sought for dissolution of marriage by granting decree of divorce.