LAWS(KAR)-2021-10-99

PARUBAI Vs. RAGVENDRA

Decided On October 27, 2021
Parubai Appellant
V/S
Ragvendra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent has filed this Misc. First Appeal under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Gulbarga in M.C.No.108/2013 dtd. 30/4/2014 whereby it has allowed the petition filed under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband-respondent herein and dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

(3.) The factual matrix leading to this case are that, the petitioner husband has filed the petition under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce against the respondent wife. It is alleged that the petitioner and respondent are the legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 7/11/2011 at Venkateshwar Kalyan Mantap, Gulbarga and it was a love cum arranged marriage. That after the marriage, respondent has joined the company of the petitioner and out of the said wedlock a son by name Aryan was born on 19/8/2012. It is alleged that after the birth of the child, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent become strained and respondent had refused to prepare / cook the food in the house and also she had not cooperated with the petitioner in marital obligation. It is further alleged that respondent has refused to cohabit with the petitioner and did not allow the petitioner any physical contact with her without any reasons and refused to share bed with him which amounts to mental cruelty. It is also alleged that she used to insist for payment of entire salary to her and later on she ousted the petitioner from his house. It is also alleged that the respondent is suspecting the character of the petitioner making allegation that he is having illicit relationship with others and the marriage bond was irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility to reunion. Hence, the petitioner claims that the act of the respondent amounts to cruelty and sought for dissolution of the marriage.