SHILPA @ VINODITA Vs. MILANKUMAR S/O RAMESH BALLARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the wife being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2018 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ranebennur (for short, 'the trial Court') in MC No.34 of 2015, by which the Trial Court has allowed the petition filed by the husband under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short, 'the Act'), directing the wife to join the company of the husband.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant/respondent and petitioner both professing Christianity, got married on 14.10.2010 as per customs and rituals of the Christian community. It is averred in the petition that they led a happy married life till 10.02014. From the wedlock, the appellant gave birth to a male child on 29.09.2012 named as Yesh Aaron; by the time she gave birth to a male child, she had completed her B.Ed. Degree. According to the husband herein, at the instance of the brothers and mother of the wife, she left the matrimonial home. It is further averred in the petition that the wife lodged a false complaint under Section 498A of IPC against the petitioner-husband and his parents which is numbered as CC 525 of 2014 before the Court of 2nd Addl. JMFC, Ranebennur. Further averments of the petition is that the appellant is earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month as a teacher. Due to her behaviour, the husband is suffering from mental cruelty. He is ready to look after the child; without there being any reasons, she has withdrawn from the company of the husband. Therefore, he filed MC No.34 of 2015 under Section 32 of the Act seeking decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) The wife appeared before the Trial Court and filed her objection denying the petition averments. It is the case of the wife that the parents of the petitioner started ill-treating her. She gave birth to a male child. The husband nor his parents have come to see the child. According to her, the husband is a rich person and she has filed a petition seeking maintenance against the husband, which is pending for consideration. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following two points for consideration and answered the same in the affirmative: