SRI RAJESH P Vs. SMT REKHA J RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru ('Family Court' for short) in M.C.No.324/2014 whereby the petition filed by the respondent against the husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) is allowed, dissolving the marriage of the respondent with the appellant solemnized on 13.05.2013, by granting a decree of divorce with effect from the date of the judgment and the relief of restitution of conjugal rights claimed by the appellant in the counter is dismissed.

(2.) The appellant and the respondent got married as per the rights and customs prevailed in Hindu Community on 13.05.2013 at Rama Kshatriya Mandira, Morgansgate, Jappu, Mangaluru. The respondent-wife herein filed a petition against the appellant herein for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, alleging cruelty. The appellant/husband herein filed statement of objections denying the allegations and sought for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. In support of the pleadings, evidence was led by both the parties and certain exhibits were marked. The Family Court profusely analyzing the evidence on record, allowed the petition of the wife directing the appellant to pay permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- to the wife dismissing the relief of restitution of conjugal rights claimed by the husband. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/husband is in appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel, Sri.P.P.Hegde appearing for the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and decree primarily on two counts. Learned counsel would contend that no cruelty was established by the respondent to which she was subjected to by the appellant. The true facts averred by the appellant in his pleadings and evidence was overlooked by the Family Court. It was argued that the Family Court could have considered the relief sought by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights in a right perspective. Secondly, it was argued that the respondent is working as a lecturer in St.Joseph College, Bajpe, Mangaluru Taluk, D.K.District and drawing more than Rs.20,000/- per month as salary whereas the appellant is working as a police constable and his take home salary is only Rs.12,105/-. Considering the same, the Family Court directing the appellant to pay permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- to the wife/respondent is unsustainable and the same is harsh and inhuman. Though the arguments were advanced on these two points initially, the learned counsel restricting his arguments to the aspect of permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- made an attempt to persuade the Court for reduction/modification of the same.