VEERUPAKSHI Vs. GOWRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and decree dated 24th August 2013 in M.C.No.38/2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Challakere, is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The appellant herein is the aggrieved husband before the lower court. He filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 (for brevity 'the Act') before the court below seeking dissolution of his marriage on the ground of cruelty. His case was, he married the respondent/wife on 9.7.2003 as per customs and led marital life for 4 years and the couple had two female issues from the wedlock. For last two years, the wife used to quarrel with him for no reason; she was not attending to the household course and was not cooking food. She developed illicit relationship with one Thippeswamy @ Pujari Thippeswamy of Marammanahally village. His advice to give up said relationship was not heeded to by the wife. She did not care for the advice of her parents also. On coming to know that the husband knows about her illicit relationship, she hatched a plan with her paramour Thippeswamy to do away with his life; on 12.3.2010 at 8.00 p.m., she gave him food mixed with poison. In this regard, he orally complained the Police and she was charge sheeted and the case is pending in the Sessions Court. There is no cordial relationship between the spouses. A panchayat of elders of the village was convened, but the wife was not ready to lead marital life with him. She is staying with her parents along with her daughters. She filed a petition for maintenance. In the said case, the jurisdictional Magistrate Court held that she is not entitled for any maintenance and he is not in a position to lead marital life with her. Petition was contested. The wife denied the entire allegations leveled against her in the petition. Her defence was, on the false complaint lodged by the husband, a charge sheet is filed against her in respect of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and the case is pending. She has filed a Revision Petition before the District Court against the order passed by the Magistrate Court in dismissing her maintenance case. There is danger to her life from the husband. There is no cause of action for the petition.

(3.) Sri.H.K.Ravi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the husband had placed enough of material about the adulterous relationship the wife had with one Thippeswamy and that the marriage was irretrievably broken; he had examined two independent witnesses also, who had participated in the panachayat and the witnesses had testified that the wife had admitted before Panchayatdaars, the wrong done by her to her husband. The appreciation of evidence by the court below is erroneous. When his evidence was corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses, the court ought to have appreciated his case and dissolved his marriage by decree of divorce on the grounds of adultery and cruelty.