M. GEETHA Vs. B.A. BHEEMARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the wife challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 5/9/2017 passed by the IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C.No.3854/2013, wherein the petition filed by the husband under Sec. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the marriage of the appellant-wife with the respondent-husband was solemnized on 27/11/1986 at Bengaluru and from the said wedlock, two children by name Eshwar Prasad and Vishal were born to the couple. The husband and wife were both employed. They lived as husband and wife till the year 2000 and for the last more than 20 years, they have been residing separately.

(3.) The husband filed petition under Sec. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act, with a prayer to dissolve the marriage solemnized on 27/11/1986, contending that ever since the marriage, his wife was always quarrelling with him and his family members and was insisting him to set up a separate residence and stay away from his parents. Therefore, he was compelled to purchase a house in the year 1991 and only for a short period the couple lived in the said house along with their children. The wife allegedly left the company of the petitioner-husband abruptly on 3/12/2020 along with her household articles. It is also averred that thereafter, she filed a false criminal case against the petitioner and his family members for the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC and the petitioner and his family members were tried for the alleged offence in C.C.No.20040/2003 before the jurisdictional Magistrate and ultimately, they were acquitted. It is also averred that thereafter she filed a false criminal complaint alleging that the petitioner-husband had forged her signature in her cheque leaves and even the said case was subsequently dismissed. The respondent-wife had also filed O.S.No.87/2001 seeking maintenance from the petitioner though she was working as a Headmistress in a Government Aided School and the maintenance awarded in the said suit was being paid by him regularly. Subsequently, the respondent-wife who had voluntarily deserted the petitioner also had filed a petition under Sec. 9 of the Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the said petition was dismissed after contest on 3/4/2013.