DEVALU Vs. KAVITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellant had instituted a matrimonial case against the present respondent before the Family Court, Vijayapur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Family Court') in MVC No.216/2014 under Sec. 13(1), (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the relief of dissolution of his marriage with the respondent.

(2.) The summary of the case of the petitioner in the Family Court was that by birth the petitioner is specially abled person (a polio attack person), knowing the said fact the respondent married him on the date 15/7/2005. However after the marriage she refused to cohabit with him, as such the marriage remained without any consummation. Refusing to stay with her husband, the respondent lived separately for about two years in her parental house. Though the pancahyat was held in that regard, the same did not yield any result and she did not return. However, though she came to live with him later for a short duration then also she was not taking care of the husband properly and was quarreling with the brothers and in-laws in whose joint family the petitioner was residing in their form house. It is also alleged in the petition that she was insisting him to establish a separate house in a Tanda and instead of form house and away from his brothers and parents. It is further the contention of the petitioner that finding lack of compatibility with his family members she deserted him and did not even visit the hospital when as an inpatient he was taking treatment in the hospital at Vijayapur for his kidney problem. He has further stated that in order to harass him, the respondent has filed a complaint under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'D.V.Act') in the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Vijayapura and also living separately for no valid reason. With this, he has prayed for an order of dissolution of marriage on the ground of alleged cruelty and desertion.

(3.) The respondent appeared through her counsel in the Family Court filed her written statement wherein she has denied the allegations made by the petitioner in his petition. Except denying the allegations made therein she has not stated her version of the case and also has not given any reason for she alleged to have stayed away from the company of her husband. However, she stated that her husband is capable of earning and has been running a sugar cane crushing business and he is earning Rs.30,000.00 per month and he has also got landed properties at Bhutanal Village, which lands are irrigated lands.