VIDYA RAMAKRISHNAIAH Vs. R N VIKRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the wife. In this appeal she has called in question the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 26th September, 2003 made in M. C. No. 1173 of 2000 by the Court of Principal Judge, Family court, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Family Court') granting a decree dissolving the marriage that had been solemnized between her and the respondent.

(2.) FACTS in brief, as set out in the petition may be stated as hereunder: the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was performed on 20th June, 1999 according to the traditional Hindu rites at dayananda Sagar Kalyan Mantap, Bangalore. According to the petition averment, the marriage was an arranged marriage; the appellant lived and studied in United State of America where her parents lived; and after obtaining her diploma she got admitted to the Devaraj Urs Medical college, Tamaka, Kolar District; she used to accompany her parents to india and spend the summer vacation in India; she is the only daughter for her parents; the appellant was never enthusiastic over the marriage either before or during or after the marriage for the reasons best known to her; the appellant was not at all inclined to come and stay with the respondent at the matrimonial home along with his mother and aged grandmother; the respondent is a qualified doctor; he is also the only son of his parents; he lost his father when he was in infancy and it was his mother and grandmother who brought him up with affection and concern bestowing attention to inculcate good and wholesome family values and higher education which have stood him in good stead as he had a brilliant academic record; he is a soft-spoken, level headed and considerate to others both by upbringing and by his profession; since the appellant was reluctant to stay with him at the matrimonial home along with his mother and grandmother, the parents of the appellant persuaded him to stay with her with the assurance that she would spend the weekends with his mother and grandmother at the matrimonial home, as a stop-gap arrangement he agreed to live with the appellant as suggested by her parents with a fond hope that the appellant will change her attitude and eventually come and stay with him along with his widowed mother and grandmother; the said hope was totally belied by the irresponsible, contemptuous attitude and behaviour on the part of the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant is highly temperamental and least concerned towards the sensibility of others; the appellant was never co-operative in her conduct as a newly wedded spouse; very few intimate relationship were there between the spouses; the appellant by nature is quarrelsome and there used to be frequent quarrels at her instance; she used to abuse the respondent and even assaulted him on 8th July, 1999, 12th August, 1999 and 19th september, 1999 without any provocation; the appellant generally displayed scant regard not only for him but also for his mother and grandmother despite their age and status; the appellant had asked him to quit her house on 19th September, 1999 alleging that he married her with the sole purpose of going to USA for improving his professional prospects which was false to her knowledge as his professional credentials are sufficient in themselves for him to improve his prospects either in India or abroad. It is further alleged that when he visited the appellant on 29th January, 2000 to deliver some books and booklets left by one Dr. Rajesh as requested by her in her letter dated 10th January, 2000, he was insulted and ill-treated by the appellant at her house; when the mother of the respondent visited the appellant on 30th january, 2000 at her house to join him at the matrimonial home, she showed scant regard for his mother and insulted her by refusing to let her enter the house; she had not cared to respond to several suggestions made to her to visit matrimonial 'home at least on festival days like gowri-Ganesha, Dasara, Deepavali, Sankranti which show that she is not concerned for either the marital tie or to lead a normal wedded life. The appellant is habituated to pick up quarrels and violently react even in ordinary situations and had abused the respondent, his mother and grandmother; the respondent had to suffer insult, humiliation and anguish ever since the marriage and his patience and tolerance have worn thin and if the endless agony continues, he might become a mental wreck; the efforts made by the respondent and the well-wishers of the respondent to repair the damage inflicted on the marital tie by the appellant have not borne fruit and on the other hand the appellant had become more reckless, callous and arrogant which seem to feed her ego to no end; his suffering and misery have served only to make the appellant more of a sadist and unreasonable. It is also asserted in the petition that the respondent caused notice on 18th February, 2000 issued to the respondent highlighting her misdeeds, misbehaviour and arrogant attitude which was replied by the appellant by her reply notice dated 13th April, 2000 making reckless allegations against the respondent, his mother and grandmother. To the said reply notice the respondent caused rejoinder notice dated 19th June, 2000; and since the unfortunate marriage between him and the appellant had turned out to be an oppressive yoke and unwanted burden causing great suffering, hardship, worry and humiliation to him, which he was unable to bear any more, he was constrained to file petition seeking for divorce. The respondent filed her objections statement inter alia disputing the assertions made by the respondent and contending that the respondent has not made out any ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), she has denied the assertion of the respondent that she had assaulted him on 8th July, 1999, 12th August, 1999 and 19th September, 1999. On the other hand, it is her case that on 8th July, 1999 the respondent's mother came to her house and started fighting with her parents in front of her relatives who were present and also in the presence of servants. Thereafter, for nearly one month the respondent, who was staying in her house, used to pick up quarrels every now and then and accused her and her parents unnecessarily. It is claimed by her that on 12th August, 1999, the respondent, in order to spoil the preplanned programme of both the respondent and herself to give surprise to appellant's mother on her birthday that is on 13th August, picked up a quarrel with the appellant in respect of inviting guests for lunch and left her house abruptly in the night. It is also alleged by her that on 15th August, 1999, her parents left for USA leaving behind the appellant to complete her M. B. B. S. course and come to America with the respondent after finishing her course and thereafter the appellant and the respondent were living in her house at Jayanagar for some days. When the appellant went to the house of the petitioner on festival day, she saw a girl called Menaka in the house of the respondent who had accompanied the respondent and his mother to Airport while her parents left to America; and the said girl was a paying guest in the house of the respondent and her access to the respondent's room and his cupboard, though seemed to be suspicious, she did not bother; and during the dinner the respondent's mother forced the appellant to sit on the other end of the table and made that girl Menaka to sit beside the respondent. In response to the allegations of the respondent that the appellant assaulted the respondent on 19th september, 1999, she had stated that on the said date the respondent came to her house and started quarreling with her on the pretext that some relatives from her side had said that her parents though knowing several politicians and officials in America, have not got the visa done to the respondent even after 2-3 months because they want him to prove his worth to be in their family and they would not get him visa for 2-3 years. It is also asserted by her that on the said date the respondent insisted on the appellant 100 thousand dollars to be deposited in his mother's name and demanded a Ford Car and made a suggestion for transfer of their Jayanagar house, where she was living, in his mother's name; when she told him that his demand was unreasonable, the respondent got enraged against her, caught hold her by her hair and pulled her around and he physically assaulted her in the house; he damaged the phone table by smashing the telephone, etc. By this the appellant having been completely depressed, left to her hostel at Kolar on 20th September, 1999 to complete her examination and she never returned till 2nd January, 2000; she has asserted that there was a demand by the respondent and her mother for dowry and for presentation of car etc. , she has denied that she was never co-operative with the respondent and she is by nature quarrelsome and there used to be frequent quarrels at her instance and she used to abuse him, etc.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, the Family Court framed three points for consideration. They read as hereunder: