LEELADEVI RAO Vs. K U HARI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THAT differences can arise between spouses even at ripe old age making it impossible for them to live together is amply demonstrated by the facts of this case. The presence of grown up children who are now settled in life or the economic affluence which the parties have seen in their happier days together has also made little difference in resolving the stalemate and bringing the couple together. Litigation often brings realism with it. In the present case, even that has failed to subdue the negative sentiments which the parties have towards each other. They have continued to stay apart in two different continents for over a decade. With the husband settled in Canada and the wife spending her days in India, there is little chance for their affection overtaking their aversion. It has on the contrary hardened their attitudes and made any reconciliation difficult. All told, the situation in which the parties are placed is unfortunate and the Court's duty to find a solution for them unenviable.

(2.) THE parties were married way back in September 1958 at Karur in tiruchanapalli District of Tamil Nadu. They were blessed with three sons and a daughter. While two sons and the daughter are since married and settled,- the third son was during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court below studying in Kasturba Medical College at Mangalore. It is obvious that even he must have by now qualified and settled in life. The husband is a Doctor who started his matrimonial life at Rangoon. He lived there till 1971, whereafter the family shifted to Brunei and continued there up to 1984. In November 1985, the wife came to visit her mother in Bangalore. She could not according to her version return to Brunei as the husband did not send her a re-entry pass, which was essential for her return to Brunei. She was thus forced to stay back with her sons and daughter who joined her later. In March 1987, the husband came to India but shortly thereafter went away to Canada where he is now settled. He would visit India once in a while but return soon thereafter to Canada every time leaving her behind. He visited india in April 1990, but this time asked the wife to vacate No. 10, brunton Manor, where the family was then living. Upon her refusal to leave, she was given a physical beating and threatened with dire consequences if she complained to the police. A complaint in writing was all the same made in May 1990 at Ulsoor Police Station, but the police declined to register the case as Sri K. U. Balakrishna Rao, the husband's younger brother had considerable influence with the authorities being the Director General of Police in Bangalore. Two days after the marriage of their daughter held on 17-6-1990, the wife was assaulted once again and physically thrown out of the house forcing her to take shelter in her sister's house with no money for her sustenance. Not only that, gold ornaments worth nearly four lakhs lying in the locker of Indian Overseas Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore were removed by the husband in collusion with the bank officials. M. C. No. 312 of 1991 was in the above circumstances filed by the wife before the Family Court at bangalore seeking a decree for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.

(3.) THE respondent-husband appeared and filed his objections to the said petition in which he denied the allegation made by the appellant-wife that he was an alcoholic or that he had maltreated or deserted the wife ab alleged by her. The objections went on to state that the wife had visited her parents in Bangalore to check the possibilities of the children's education in Bangalore. She stayed back in Bangalore as the children had commenced their education. He visited Bangalore every year since 1985 depending on his leave and sent monthly amounts towards maintenance of the family and children's education. He also claimed to have performed the wedding of his three children on which occasions the appellant-wife also was present and participating. After the marriage of their daughter Amba, she suddenly and without any cause left the matrimonial home on 19-6-1990 informing her eldest son sri Arun Kumar that she was going to her sisters place. When the respondent-husband returned home and found the appellant-wife missing, he started to search for her, which proved abortive. She had in the meantime collected her baggage from Brunton Manor House to which she did not return despite repeated attempts made to bring her back. She did not according to the respondent indicate any reason for her withdrawal till March 1991 and stayed aloof in the marriage ceremony of their son Sri Anil Kumar. She then sent a legal notice to him in which she made false allegations and suggested a divorce by mutual consent. That request was turned down by the respondent. It was further alleged that having retired in 1988 in Brunei, he is residing in Canada as a landed immigrant without acquiring the Canadian citizenship.