SHAMA RAO D Vs. ANUPAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent is M.C. 1310/02 is challenging the decree of divorce dt. 19.12.05 granted in M.C. No. 1310/2002 on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, dissolving the marriage between himself and his wife Petitioner in the said proceedings. The judgment and Decree dated 19.12.2005 is a common judgment in M.C. No. 1310/2002 filed by the wife seeking decree of divorce under Section 13(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and O.S. No. 75/2003 also filed by the wife seeking decree of injunction against her husband restraining him from making false and defamatory statements against her in respect of their marital relationship. The Respondent husband in the proceeding is challenging the judgment and Decree passed in M.C. No. 1310/2002 only. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to by their status in M.C. Petition in the Family Court.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal are, Petitioner is wife Respondent is her husband. They are Hindus, their marriage was solemnised on 09.10.2000. The Petitioner and Respondent are well educated, qualified doctors in medicine, At the time of the marriage Respondent was employed as a doctor in Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology in Trivendrum and Petitioner was just a house wife. The matrimonial house was set up in Trivendrum. Subsequently in August 2001, Petitioner was also appointed as doctor in the same institute.

(3.) The case of the Petitioner is, after the marriage initially she and her husband were leading happy and comfortable married life, though her husband is short tempered and would get upset over small things in life. According to her, the mis-understanding started with the desire to purchase a second hand Maruthi Car for their use. On her suggestion Respondent purchased a car for Rs. 1,00,000/- which belonged to company run by her father's friend and the said car was used by her father. Though the car was sold for Rs. 1,00,000/-, company issued receipt for Rs. 1,50,000/-, for the reason, as on the date of sale book value of the car was Rs. 1,50,000/-. According to Petitioner it is a minor financial arrangement. The Respondent after coming to know of the same created commotion, abused Petitioner, her parents accusing them for giving dowry clandestinely without his knowledge. Immediately he paid the difference of Rs. 50,000/- to her father, which was accepted by him to avoid confrontation or unpleasant situation with son-in-law. After this incident on any given occasion Respondent would take that as an example to show the Petitioner and her parents in poor light and call them untrustworthy people who try to influence others with money.