MALLAPPA Vs. LALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are preferred against the order passed by the I Addl. Senior Civi l Judge at Hubli, granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a petition f iled by the petitioner/husband and dismissing the petition insofar as the alternative rel ief of divorce is concerned. Both the husband and wife are challenging the order. That is how these two appeals are before us.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original petition.

(3.) THE petitioner/Mal lappa Yallapa Sorati married the respondent Smt.Lalita on 17.04.2000 at Hubl i. On the date of marriage, the petitioner was working as a Teacher in Primary School at Saunshi vi l lage in Kundagol Taluk. After the marriage, he set up the fami ly at Saunshi Vi l lage with the respondent. They lead a happy married l ife. From there, he was transferred to Shrinivaspura, to which place he moved the fami ly. Two sons are born to them. The respondent/wife was appointed as a High School Teacher in the year 2002 and she was posted to Gendenahal li in Belur Taluk at Hasan District. The petitioner's mother accompanied her to Gendenahal li. Subsequently, the respondent started giving trouble to the petitioner and his fami ly members. She sent back the petitioner's mother who was aged 80 years. The petitioner tried to get transfer the respondent to the Taluk where he was working from Hasan District. An order of transfer is also passed. At the instigation of the parents of the respondent, she was not relieved. However, subsequently, she was relieved and posted to Harapanahal l i Taluk. The respondent started harassing the petitioner. The al legation is even the brother of the respondent tried to give physical harassment. The intention behind this trouble is to exclusively appropriate the salary of the respondent. At the instigation of her parents and brother, the respondent f iled a complaint before the Halavagalu Pol ice station. The parents forced the petitioner to execute a bond stating that he would reside separately from 13.09.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondent to join his company. Even he tried to advice her through elders. He also issued a legal notice. But, a false reply was sent and she did not join him. Therefore, he was constrained to fi le a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and in the alternative, for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.