RADHA Vs. S. GANGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order of dissolution of her marriage with the respondent herein, the respondent in M.C. No. 2533/2008, which was pending on the file of the IV Additional Family Court, Bangalore has approached this Court. Respondent Gangaiah was the petitioner in the said case M.C. No. 2533/2008 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The learned IV Additional Judge of the Family Court, Bangalore has allowed the petition on 07.04.2011 by dissolving the marriage of the parties herein, which had been solemnized on 12.09.1984. It is this final order passed under Section 13(1a) and (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is called in question on various facts set out in the appeal memo. Parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the Family Court. Sri. Gangaiah will be referred to as the petitioner and the appellant herein Smt. Radha will be referred to as the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner's marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 12.09.1984 according to the customs of the parties. On 01.05.1995, respondent gave birth to a female child and she is named as M.G. Deepa. After few years of the marriage, respondent - Radha started behaving abnormal and used to abuse him without any basis, as set out in the averment found in the petition filed before the Trial Court. According to the petitioner, respondent used to leave the matrimonial house without any valid reason and ultimately left the matrimonial house once for all on 15.10.2000. According to the petitioner, he was unnecessarily involved in a Criminal case on a complaint lodged against him. He was working as an official in Bangalore Development Authority and on some allegations, a criminal case was lodged and respondent was also responsible for misguiding him, is the allegation. Two daughters of the sister of the petitioner were living with him and he assisted them in completing their education and at the same time, he was assisting his daughter Deepa also. His daughter M.G. Deepa was under the constant influence of the respondent and she used to take her minor daughter to Tumkur and Shimoga without informing him and according to him he allowed her brother to be in the company of M.G. Deepa and as a result of the same, her daughter M.G. Deepa became pregnant even before attaining majority and this was objected to by him. According to him, the marriage of M.G. Deepa was solemnized with her brother by the respondent and she never bothered to enquire about his health and walked out of his life moreso when he was under suspension on serious criminal charges. It is his allegation that the respondent and her father gave a representation on 19.08.2008 to Bangalore Development Authority requesting to revoke the order of suspension and this was done without his knowledge and it is stated to have been done with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner.

(3.) IN view of the bad habits of the petitioner and his suspension on severe charges, she had to make suitable arrangement for upbringing her daughter M.G. Deepa. According to her, the petitioner himself sent her through his brother Devaraj and his relative Krishnappa to her father's house assuring that he would get them back when the financial position would improve. It is her case that she never quarreled with him at any point of time and she never deserted him. After sending her and her daughter, he fell into bad habits and started living in the bad company of bad people and women and had even gone to the extent of threatening her that he would commit suicide, if she returned along with her daughter. Therefore, she thought of not giving any room to cause any injury to her husband's life and hence started living in her parents house at Tumkur. She was ready and willing to join and live with him and give him due protection and due care. In view of the bad habits of the petitioner and his inability to maintain them, she had to take shelter in her parents' home. She was talking to the petitioner whenever he used to attend functions in the house of their relatives. According to her, if the petitioner has undergone any hardship or difficulty, it is purely on account of his own conduct and she is not responsible in any way. According to her, the petitioner wants divorce with a bad intention and he is avoiding from taking her back. Hence, she has prayed for dismissal of the petition.