SARVAMANGALA Vs. NAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Sec. 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 26/11/2013 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.804/2009 wherein the marriage between the parties solemnized on 28/5/1990 at Dhanehalli Village, Honnali Taluk, Shivamogga District has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of the case as revealed from the records are, the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 28/5/1990 as per the customs and rites prevailed in their community. At the time of marriage, the respondent-husband was worked in a private firm at Bengaluru. Therefore, in the month of June, 1990 he came to Bengaluru along with his wife and started living in a rented house at Chikkabidirekallu of Nelamangala Taluk. The appellant - wife started quarrelling with the respondent - husband on petty issues and she also used to quarrel with the neighbours for no reason. Due to the behaviour of the appellant - wife, the landlord of the house insisted for vacating the premises. Whenever the couple quarreled, the appellant - wife used to go out of the house and start shouting loudly standing in the street which embarrassed the respondent and because of this behaviour of the appellant, the respondent had to frequently change his residence. The appellant was throughout non-cooperative and behaving arrogantly with the respondent and in the month of August, 1992, she left the company of the respondent and started residing with her parents and thereafter she had not come back and all efforts made by the respondent to bring her back had failed. Thereafter, the respondent herein had filed petition before the jurisdictional civil Court, Shivamogga for dissolution of marriage which was subsequently transferred to the Family Court, Bengaluru and re-numbered as M.C.No.804/2009. In the said proceedings, the appellant -wife had filed statement of objections denying the petition averments. She has also contended that after the birth of girl child in the year 1992, the respondent had not taken her back. Before the Family Court, the respondent had examined himself as P.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and four documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to P.4 whereas the appellant examined herself as R.W.1 and got marked 5 documents as Ex.R.1 to R.5. The Family Court vide the impugned judgment and decree allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage between the appellant and the respondent and being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent has not made out the grounds for dissolution of marriage either under Sec. 13(1)(ia) or 13(1)(ib) of the Act. He submits that the Family Court has completely erred in appreciating the material evidence available on record. He also submits that the Family Court has not exercised its power under Sec. 25 of the Act while passing the order of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties.