KAMALADEVI Vs. SHIVAKUMARSWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a Judgment and Decree passed by the Addl. Civil Judge at Hubli whereby M. C. No. 32/1989 filed by the respondent-husband has been allowed and the marriage between the parties dissolved by a decree of divorce under S. 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(2.) THE parties were married to each other according to Hindu rites in the year 1977. They lived together for a year and a half but have remained separated ever since. M. C. No. 32/1989 was filed by the respondent-husband seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights or in the alternative, a decree for divorce under S. 13 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The respondent's case as set out in the petition was that after having lived with him for a year and a half, the wife went away to her parental house at Karjagi never to return again. Efforts made to bring her back to resume cohabitation with him were alleged to have failed despite intervention of the elders. The petition went on to state that the wife had agreed to return to Hubli where the husband was during the relevant period working as a Clerk in the Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation. She did come to Hubli but stayed in her maternal sister's house without so much as informing the husband about the same. The petition alleged that the wife had deserted the husband without lawful excuse in spite of the petitioner's repeated request asking her to return to her matrimonial home. The petition also referred to Crl. Misc. No. 144/1988 filed by the wife under S. 125 of the Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance. It was alleged that the averments made in the petition seeking maintenance were false and that the same were appropriately answered by the husband. The Court had, however, awarded in favour of the wife a sum of Rs. 225/- per month towards maintenance. The petition on the above assertions prayed for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. It also made an alternative prayer for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce if the Court came to the conclusion that restitution of conjugal rights was not possible.

(3.) IN the objections filed on behalf of the wife, the allegations made by the husband were denied as being false. The objections also disputed the allegations that the wife had abused or threatened the paternal uncle of the husband or his wife. The objections went on to state that after the marriage, the husband took the wife to Village Adur in Hangal Taluk and kept her in the house of his uncle and aunt. The uncle and the aunt of the husband in turn started beating and abusing the wife without any reason whatsoever. They even threatened to kill her and instigated the husband by making false allegations against her. Even the husband started harassing and resorting to physical violence. The wife it was alleged continued to bear all the harassment and cruelty in the hope that the husband would mend his ways and start caring for her. This did not come true for the wife who was eventually dragged and thrown out of the house. Ever since the wife has been staying in a rented room at Hubli. The elders and other family members of the wife made efforts to persuade the petitioner husband to take her back, but the husband flatly refused to do so, and threatened the wife with injury to her life and limb. The objections prayed for dismissal of the petition on the ground that it was the husband who was responsible for desertion and cruelty and not vice-versa. The wife also expressed apprehensions about her safety in case she were to go back to the husband to live with him.