VENKAPPA SHETTY Vs. SMT. LALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the husband of the respondent. He is the petitioner in Original Petition No.160 of 2007 of the Family Court, Kasargod. The aforesaid Original Petition was filed under Section 13(1)(ia), (ib) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the respondent, seeking a decree dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent.

(2.) The respondent resisted the prayer for dissolution of marriage by denying all the allegations of cruelty, desertion and mental disorder alleged against her. After considering the evidence on record, the Family Court rejected the claim for dissolution of marriage and dismissed the Original Petition on a finding that the appellant failed to prove any of the grounds raised in the Original Petition. This appeal is filed challenging the findings, whereby the Family Court rejected the claim for dissolution of marriage. The parties are referred to as in the Original Petition.

(3.) According to the averments in the Original Petition, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was on 09.10.1995 and a child was born to them in the said wedlock. They lived together as husband and wife till 1996 and thereafter they had been living separately. According to the petitioner, the marital relationship was strained from the very beginning of the marriage and it was because of the misbehaviour and uncultured attitude of the respondent towards the petitioner in public places like temple, bus stands etc. On 09.04.1996, at 10 pm, the respondent tried to kill the petitioner by throttling and he was saved by his sister, who came on hearing his cries. On 11.09.1996, she picked up quarrel for no reason and abused him in filthy languages. From the very beginning, he came to know that the respondent is suffering from mental disorder and he spent huge amount for the treatment of the said mental disorder; but there was no improvement. He apprehends danger to his life and property in the company of the respondent. He is not reasonably expected to live with her. The respondent left the matrimonial home on Vishu day in 1996, after picking up quarrel with him for some silly matters. Thereafter, she delivered the child on 13.12.1996. They have residing separately after the delivery of the child. Hence, he prayed for dissolution of marriage.