SUVARNA KOM RATNAKAR SHET Vs. RATNAKAR VINAYAK SHET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.F.A. No. 23999/2009 is preferred by the wife challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsi, in M.C No. 29/2006 granting a decree for judicial separation in a petition filed for divorce by her husband. M.F.A. No. 24000/09 is also filed by her challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Sirsi, in M.C No. 8/2007 dismissing her petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned trial Judge did not club both the petitions and record common evidence. He recorded evidence in both cases separately and decided the petition for divorce on merits. While dealing with the wife's petition M.C No. 8/2007 for restitution of conjugal rights in the judgment, though he has set out pleadings of the case and recorded evidence, he has not discussed the evidence on record and dismissed the petition on the ground that already he has passed an order for judicial separation, in M.C No. 29/2006, which should satisfy the wife. Therefore both these appeals are taken up for consideration together and decision to be rendered by this Court in M.F.A. No. 23999/2009 would have a direct bearing on the decision to be rendered in M.F.A. No. 24000/2009. However, for the purpose of deciding these cases on merits, we have taken up for consideration the pleadings and evidence in the petition filed for divorce, i.e., M.C. No. 29/2006 only. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to as they are arrayed to in M.C. No. 29/2006.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that he married the respondent on 20.05.2001 at Sri Gopalakrishna temple, Sirsi, in the presence of the elders of the family as per the rites and rituals prevailing in the community. The petitioner is opposed to the mischief of dowry. He did not receive any dowry at the time of marrying the respondent. From his money he provided to the respondent all the day to day requirements in respect of gold ornaments required by the respondent. He lived with the respondent happily for a period of 1 1/2 years. A daughter is born and she is named as Kum. Vidyashree. After the marriage he has looked after the respondent with love and affection. She went to her parent's house for confinement. Thereafter, on her return to the petitioner's house, she started harassing him and his aged mother, who was suffering from Cancer by non co-operation. Petitioner advised the respondent, but she started quarrelling with him and his mother on small matters. Even though petitioner requested the respondent to adjust, she has not cared for his suggestion. She insisted that petitioner's mother should be sent back to her native place, then only she would live with him. Petitioner sent his mother back to Santagal village in Kumta Taluk. Even then the respondent is not co-operating with the petitioner in performing her marital obligations and she has neglected the petitioner. Subsequently, respondent stopped doing household work. Without informing the petitioner she used to be away from the house. She was going to her native place, i.e., Sirsi. She was behaving according to her whims and fancies. She has shown disrespect to the petitioner. She left her daughter Kum. Vidyashree in her native place. When petitioner objected to the same, she threatened to live separately. Respondent was taking care of her relatives very well. But if the petitioner's relatives came to the house, she was not taking care of them. Though respondent was given sufficient opportunity to correct and mend her behaviour, there is no improvement. Petitioner has made attempts to adjust to this attitude of the respondent for the purpose of leading a peaceful marital life and also in the interest of his loving daughter. However, respondent is not extending the marital happiness to the petitioner. Everyday the respondent quarrels with the petitioner. She makes accusations, humiliations and talks to him in a very improper manner. She would remove her Mangalsutra and throw it. Still the petitioner tolerated her. Though she was quarrelling with the petitioner and going to her parental house, he has gone and brought her back to his house. However, respondent is indulging in her old habits, she humiliates the petitioner, behaves improperly with him, uses bad words against him. In spite of it, in order to maintain family name he has left his ailing mother, who is suffering from Cancer and left other members of the family and attempted to live with the respondent. Respondent has prevented the petitioner to have the company of his loving daughter. She has denied to the petitioner, his daughter's love and affection. In spite of the same petitioner has shown patience and has attempted to live with her. Respondent everyday did not cook food, she did not attend to the petitioner's daily needs, she has neglected the petitioner. She behaves according to her whims and fancies. Without the knowledge of the petitioner she goes to her parental house, when questioned, respondent told the petitioner that there is no relationship between them, she does not like him, she wants to leave him and live in her parents' house, she did not need him and so saying she removed the Mangalasutra and quarrelled with the petitioner and wanted to leave him. When the petitioner was not in the house she has taken away all the gold ornaments from the house on 27.12.2003 to her parental house. From that day onwards the petitioner is living alone being dejected in life.

(3.) When the petitioner went to the respondent's parental house with a request to return to the house, she has humiliated him, she has spoken ill of him and the members in her parental house have also instigated her, they did not show any courtesy to him and he was forced to return. Petitioner went to the house with his family members and elders. At that time she stated that she wants to live alone and she do not want to live with the petitioner. She did not show any respect to the petitioner or to the elders who had accompanied him. She used abusive words and humiliated him by scolding. She has categorically stated that she does not want to have any relationship with the petitioner. In spite of the same, petitioner because of his love and affection to the respondent got issued a legal notice calling upon her to join him. In reply, she has made baseless allegations and refused to live with him.