G ASHARANI Vs. N NAGENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the I Addl. Prl. Family Court at Mysuru ('Family Court' for short) in M.C. No.365/2015.

(2.) Facts in brief are:

(3.) Learned counsel Sri.C.V.Srinivasa, appearing for the appellant would contend that the Family Court grossly erred in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant in faulting that she had not stepped into the witness box. It was argued that, when the materials placed on record from the side of the appellant was the undisputed testimony about the conduct of the respondent right from the year 1999, the Family Court should have given due weightage to this material and erred in rejecting the contention of the appellant. Inviting the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in MFA No.10504/2007 (DD 7.2.2011) submitted that several attempts made by the appellantwife to live together with the respondent-husband did not materialize and this aspect was noticed and observed by this Court that similar attempt was made by this Court in persuading the parties to live together, initially the husband had agreed and later he went back. The observation made by this Court in the said MFA 10504/2007 speaks about the conduct of the respondent, which, in fact, establishes the false allegations made by the respondent against the appellant as regards the desertion and cruelty aspects are concerned. This Court has categorically held in MFA 10504/2007 that except the self serving testimony, no other evidence was placed before the Court to show that the wife treated the husband with cruelty. Even so far desertion is concerned, it was held that the appellant-wife is ready to join the husband right from the beginning. The intention of the respondenthusband is only to get rid of her and accordingly, rejected the appeal as no valid ground was made out by the respondent. Despite the dismissal of the appeal, on the very same grounds the respondent filed M.C.No.365/2015. The Family Court ought to have considered the observations made by this Court in MFA No.10504/2007 and would have rejected the M.C. petition filed by the husband, on the very same grounds. In support of the contentions advanced, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following Judgments: