LAWS(KAR)-2013-12-601

PARERA VENUGOPAL Vs. P B RUKMINI

Decided On December 17, 2013
PARERA VENUGOPAL Appellant
V/S
P B RUKMINI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order of dismissal of the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act in M.C. No. 25/2008 dated 22.06.2012. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Madikeri, has dismissed the petition filed by the husband. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds. The appellant was the petitioner and the respondent was the respondent in the said petition. The parties will be referred to as petitioner and the respondent.

(2.) Their marriage was solemnized on 24.06.1983 at Kattemadu Village, as per the Hindu customs. He was serving in the Indian Army and retired in the year 1987. At that time, respondent had been working as a School Teacher at Yedavare Village, Somwarpet Taluk. Whenever the petitioner used to get leave, he used to come and stay with his wife-respondent. According to him, his wife is rude, stubborn and cruel. She is stated to be quarreling with him for no fault. Even children also join her to give him mental and physical torture. After retirement he got appointment in State Bank of Mysore, Srirangapatna and now he has got transferred to Somwarpet. Hence, he had requested the Court to grant him the decree of divorce.

(3.) The respondent had filed detailed objections denying all the material allegations. Petitioner is stated to have suppressed the truth and that he was working in Mandya. He did not maintain the family as a prudent man and did not show any love or affection towards her and her children. At the age of 35, he retired and he has worked as security guard in the remaining period. Petitioner's brother Yadava and his family were residing at Mandya and he was an employee in the office of Agriculture, Srirangapatna. Yadava died in the year 2002 and since then petitioner is maintaining the family of his deceased brother. Now the family of Yadava is shifted to Madikeri and petitioner will be visiting everyday and spending his income with them. In fact the petitioner himself has deserted the respondent and her children, is the grouse. She had requested to dismiss the petition.