A.C. MANOHAR Vs. S. LATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the husband's appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Nanjanagudu dismissing the petition filed by him for divorce on the ground of desertion. The petitioner married the respondent on 06.10.2003 at Sri Manjunatha Swamy Temple, Dharmasthala. After the marriage, the respondent joined the husband. In the year 2004, a boy was born. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the year 2004, the respondent went to her parental house without her husband's permission. The petitioner went and brought her back which caused mental and physical cruelty. Again on 15.01.2006, her parents gave a bond to the Nanjangud Police Station and took their daughter to their house. However, thereafter she has not returned. On 15.01.2006 the respondent along with her child, clothes and jewels voluntarily left the company of the petitioner and she is residing with her parents. A panchayath was convened which was not accepted by the respondent and their family members. As the respondent is living at her parents place for nearly 6 years, she has no intention of joining the petitioner. Therefore, the petition was filed for divorce on the ground of desertion.

(2.) THE respondent has filed a counter denying all the allegations in the petition. It is her specific case that the petitioner was insulting her because the marriage was performed in a temple. She was accused that she is short tempered, idiot and her sister is living in her parents house even after the marriage. He insults her parents. His grievance is that her parents have not given sufficient gold and silver ornaments. She was not treated properly. She was not shown to the doctor properly and only after obtaining the permission of the petitioner, she had been to her parents place for delivery. Thereafter, nobody came and took her back. In fact only after her parents sent her with 35 grams of gold and silver ornaments to her matrimonial home, she was allowed to get into their house and they all are with the petitioner. When her parents came during Shankranthi, he permitted them to take the respondent to their place and thereafter, she was not allowed to join him. The petitioners brother assaulted the respondent's sister. A police complaint came to be lodged with the jurisdictional police. In fact the petitioner insisted that they should give an undertaking to the Nanjangud Police which they have given. She did not go to her parents house alone and she had been to her parents house with the permission of the petitioner and therefore, she submitted that there is no desertion on her part. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) THE trial Court on appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Suvarna Kom Ratnakar Shet -vs - Ratnakar Vinayak Shet [ : 2013(1) KCCR 222] held that the case of desertion pleaded by the petitioner is not made out. Every time when the respondent has to go to her parents house, she had to take the permission of the petitioner. When her parents came to take her back, they were also made to execute the bond to the jurisdictional police and then they had taken her back. Therefore, no occasion had arisen for her to leave the matrimonial home and it is only when she was thrown out of her house, she had no other option but to go to her parents house and now that the petitioner has refused to take her back and therefore, the petition for divorce was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed.