AMARANNA Vs. SUNANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the appellant - husband being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 4/9/2018 dismissing the petition filed him under Sec. 13(l)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Shorapur in MC No.35/2018.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 25/5/2014 and that three days after the marriage, the respondent came to his house and on the very same night, the respondent refused to share the bed with the appellant and told him that she would not live with him. That the respondent stayed in the house of the appellant for a short period and did not show any interest. That, the respondent stayed at her parental house for a period of six months and thereafter appellant took her to Bangalore where he was doing coolie work and stayed in Bangalore for just about 5-6 days and even during the said period she completely neglected the appellant and did not discharge any marital obligation and at the instigation of her elder sister deserted the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant requested and advised the respondent to mend her behavior and discharge the conjugal duties, but the respondent had insisted the appellant not to join with her for cohabitation. The appellant caused his relatives and elders to advise the respondent to co-operate with the appellant which the respondent flatly refused. On the other hand, she had warned them of a serious consequence if they forced her to cohabite with the appellant. That on learning about this, the parents of the respondent had come to Devapur village and took the respondent along with them promising to send back her after two days advising her. After a month, the appellant and his relatives and well wishers visited the respondent in her parental house and requested her to join him. But the respondent refused and her parents and brother abused the appellant in a filthy language and tried to assault him. That the respondent had falsely instituted the Crl.Misc.No.84/2017 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'PWDV Act') against the appellant and one Renukamma, who is the wife of the younger brother of the appellant and that the said matter was pending on the file of Court of JMFC at Muddebihal in Crl. Misc. No. 84/2017. The appellant even thereafter approached the respondent on 10/5/2018 along with elders and had requested the respondent to join the company of the appellant and to discharge the conjugal obligation which was refused by the respondent. That the appellant was aged about 40 years and was a need of company to lead a dignified life in the society and since from inception of the marriage, the respondent had refused to cohabitate with him and deserted him and have been staying separately for more than three-and-half years thereby depriving the appellant of all the pleasures of the married life which amounted the mental cruelty to the appellant. That the appellant on 21/5/2018 had issued a legal notice to the respondent calling upon her to join him, failing which he would compel to initiate the proceedings for divorce. Instead of joining the company of the appellant, the respondent had issued untenable reply to the said legal notice. Thus, according to the appellant, the marriage had broken irretrievably and that there was no possibility of reconciliation or reunion. Hence, sought for granting decree of divorce.

(3.) Upon service of notice, respondent failed to appear and was placed ex parte. Based on the pleading of the appellant, the Family Court framed the following points for consideration: