How NOT to fight divorce ... also called Why be extra careful before getting into this contract called marriage !!!
Excerpts
************************
************************
* marriage on 26.May.2003
* Divorce denied on 02 April 2014 after going thru a lot of dazzle !
Husband contends :
***********************************
* Wife has filed false complaint against husband and thereafter she did not prosecute the matter.
* Wife is insulting the petitioner abusing him in filthy language.
* She used to abuse petitioner and his father in public.
* Even after return (from her father's house) she continued to ill treat the petitioner and members of his family.
* She never cared either for the petitioner or newly born baby.
* About three years back petitioner was forced to come out of the family by deserting his parents and started residing in Humcha, Hosanagar Taluk
* Husband being a teacher and his father also being a retired teacher they are not used to this treatment and therefore he submits a case of cruelty is made out.
Hon. Court Orders :
***********************************
* We do not see any substance in the said contention !!
* As rightly pointed out by trial court because of dispute between petitioner's sister and respondent's brother which now has resulted in a decree of divorce, now an attempt is made to obtain decree against respondent.
* The fact that respondent was visiting her father cannot be a ground for divorce !!.
* There is no evidence on record to show that she was not cooking and throwing utensils on his face or abusing him in filthy language.
* The trial court on proper appreciation of evidence has rightly held case of cruelty pleaded by petitioner is not made out. We do not find any illegality in the said order.
So ... husband asked to go back and live with wife !!!
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.S.INDRAKALA
M.F.A.NO.1145 OF 2013 (MC)
BETWEEN:
SRI K.G.DHARANESH
S/O SRI.K.GURULINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TEACHER
THE GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
KADASURU,
HUMCHA HOBLI
HOSANAGAR TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
R/O GUDDEHALLI
HONNALI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT ..APPELLANT
(BY SRI.B.J.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.SMT.M.T.PUSHPA
@ KARIBASAMMA
W/O SRI.K.C.DHARANESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
D/O M.THIMMAPPA
C/O M.THIMMAPPA
MADENAHALLI
HONNALI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT ..RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:08.10.2012 PASSED IN M.C NO.4/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC 13(1)(i-a) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is a husband's petition challenging the order passed by Senior Civil Judge, Harihar dismissing his petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
2. Petitioner-husband Sri.K.G.Dharanesh married respondent Smt.M.T.Pushpa on 26.05.2003 according to Hindu rights of Lingayath Community. On the very same day sister of petitioner was married to the brother of respondent. Both the marriages took place at the residence of petitioner at Guddehalli, Honnali Taluk. A female child was born named as Kum.Rashmi who is aged about 4 years and admitted to school. Petitioner is in service and working as a teacher in Higher Primary School at Kadasuru in Hosanagar Taluk. Petitioner was residing in Humcha in a rented premises for a period of three years with the child. The relationship was not cordial even from the beginning days of marriage and respondent was quarrelling on petty matters and used to abuse petitioner with filthy language in public. Respondent used to come to her parents house often and insisting the petitioner to come out of the family and desert his parents and other members of the family. When respondent went to her parents house for delivery her behaviour with petitioner became abnormal without any reason. She used to abuse petitioner and his father in public. Even after return she continued to ill treat the petitioner and members of his family. She never cared either for the petitioner or newly born baby. About three years back petitioner was forced to come out of the family by deserting his parents and started residing in Humcha, Hosanagar Taluk. Relationship of the petitioner's sister and brother of respondent was strained. Respondent was also quarrelling with the petitioner on that count. She was adamant and careless in her attitude. Respondent was not cooking food for petitioner for days and months and throwing vessels and other things abruptly in front of the relatives and friends of petitioner and used to abuse petitioner with vulgar and filthy language. Therefore he got issued legal notice to the respondent calling upon her to stop aforesaid illegal activities and co-operate for dissolution of the marriage and also to hand over custody of the child to the petitioner for her well being. Said notice was duly replied. Therefore he filed a petition for divorce. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
3. Respondent contested the matter by filing detailed statement of objections. She has denied all the claims made in the petition. She contended that she never treated the petitioner with cruelty either mentally or otherwise and it is just imagination being made at the instigation of his parents and sister. Respondent being loved wife to the petitioner and petitioner was working at Humcha. Respondent not only tolerated his inhuman and overt acts but also suffered at the hands of his parents and she never looked after by petitioner and his parents properly. Petitioner denied her minimum necessities in life still respondent tolerated his inhuman acts. When he persisted in his illegal acts respondent was constrained to file a petition seeking grant of reliefs including monetary relief under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and maintenance of `1,500/- was granted. She preferred an appeal as the said amount was inadequate. In appeal amount was enhanced to `3,500/- per month. However after enquiry maintenance was fixed at `5,000/- for her and her daughter who was then aged about 8 years. She contends that this petition is counter blast case for the dispute between her brother and petitioner's sister. When she was troubled for dowry she was forced to lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police against petitioner. It is thereafter this petition is filed. Therefore she sought for dismissal of the petition.
On the aforesaid pleadings trial court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether petitioner proves that respondent has treated him with cruelty?
2. Whether the petitioner entitled for decree of divorce?"
4. Petitioner to substantiate his claim examined himself as PW-1, examined his father as PW-2 and also examined one witness PW-3 and produced documents which were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-3. Respondent examined herself as RW-1. Trial court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record held that evidence did not establish cruelty by the respondent. Therefore petition came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order present appeal is filed.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner assailing the impugned order contends trial court was in error in dismissing the petition on the ground that this petition is filed as a counter blast for the dispute between brother of respondent and petitioner's sister. Respondent has filed false complaint against the petitioner and thereafter she did not prosecute the matter. Respondent is insulting the petitioner abusing him in filthy language. He being a teacher and his father also being a retired teacher they are not used to this treatment and therefore he submits a case of cruelty is made out. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
6. We do not see any substance in the said contention. Evidence on record discloses petitioner married respondent and on the same day respondent's brother married petitioner's sister. It was an arranged marriage. After marriage respondent has given birth to a female child. After delivery she came back to petitioner. They lived together and thereafter it is in evidence that on his own he himself voluntarily took respondent to Humcha and made rented house. They lived together. It is thereafter she was sent out of the house and then petition is filed making allegations. As rightly pointed out by trial court because of dispute between petitioner's sister and respondent's brother which now has resulted in a decree of divorce, now an attempt is made to obtain decree against respondent. The fact that respondent was visiting her father cannot be a ground for divorce. There is no evidence on record to show that she was not cooking and throwing utensils on his face or abusing him in filthy language. On the contrary evidence on record shows after marriage they lived happily, a child was born and thereafter made separate house and they lived there for two years together and present litigation appears is a spill over of litigation between petitioner's sister and respondent's brother. It was contended that respondent has doubted fidelity of petitioner. If there is any truth in what she says it is for the petitioner to correct himself. When she was sent out she was constrained to file a petition under the provisions of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Now after contest maintenance is fixed at `5,000/- and now daughter is attending school. Petitioner pleads ignorance about his daughter attending to school or whether she is in which school which shows the interest he has in his daughter. When there is demand for dowry promptly respondent has lodged a complaint. Merely because she did not pursue the complaint that act does not amount to cruelty so as to seek a decree for divorce. It is clear from the evidence on record the petitioner is trying to make out a case as a counter blast for litigation between petitioner's sister and respondent's brother. Respondent's brother is successful in getting divorce. The trial court on proper appreciation of evidence has rightly held case of cruelty pleaded by petitioner is not made out. We do not find any illegality in the said order. No merits. Appeal dismissed.
Application for condonation of delay is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SBN
* Divorce denied on 02 April 2014 after going thru a lot of dazzle !
Husband contends :
***********************************
* Wife has filed false complaint against husband and thereafter she did not prosecute the matter.
* Wife is insulting the petitioner abusing him in filthy language.
* She used to abuse petitioner and his father in public.
* Even after return (from her father's house) she continued to ill treat the petitioner and members of his family.
* She never cared either for the petitioner or newly born baby.
* About three years back petitioner was forced to come out of the family by deserting his parents and started residing in Humcha, Hosanagar Taluk
* Husband being a teacher and his father also being a retired teacher they are not used to this treatment and therefore he submits a case of cruelty is made out.
Hon. Court Orders :
***********************************
* We do not see any substance in the said contention !!
* As rightly pointed out by trial court because of dispute between petitioner's sister and respondent's brother which now has resulted in a decree of divorce, now an attempt is made to obtain decree against respondent.
* The fact that respondent was visiting her father cannot be a ground for divorce !!.
* There is no evidence on record to show that she was not cooking and throwing utensils on his face or abusing him in filthy language.
* The trial court on proper appreciation of evidence has rightly held case of cruelty pleaded by petitioner is not made out. We do not find any illegality in the said order.
So ... husband asked to go back and live with wife !!!
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.S.INDRAKALA
M.F.A.NO.1145 OF 2013 (MC)
BETWEEN:
SRI K.G.DHARANESH
S/O SRI.K.GURULINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TEACHER
THE GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
KADASURU,
HUMCHA HOBLI
HOSANAGAR TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
R/O GUDDEHALLI
HONNALI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT ..APPELLANT
(BY SRI.B.J.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.SMT.M.T.PUSHPA
@ KARIBASAMMA
W/O SRI.K.C.DHARANESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
D/O M.THIMMAPPA
C/O M.THIMMAPPA
MADENAHALLI
HONNALI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT ..RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:08.10.2012 PASSED IN M.C NO.4/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC 13(1)(i-a) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is a husband's petition challenging the order passed by Senior Civil Judge, Harihar dismissing his petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
2. Petitioner-husband Sri.K.G.Dharanesh married respondent Smt.M.T.Pushpa on 26.05.2003 according to Hindu rights of Lingayath Community. On the very same day sister of petitioner was married to the brother of respondent. Both the marriages took place at the residence of petitioner at Guddehalli, Honnali Taluk. A female child was born named as Kum.Rashmi who is aged about 4 years and admitted to school. Petitioner is in service and working as a teacher in Higher Primary School at Kadasuru in Hosanagar Taluk. Petitioner was residing in Humcha in a rented premises for a period of three years with the child. The relationship was not cordial even from the beginning days of marriage and respondent was quarrelling on petty matters and used to abuse petitioner with filthy language in public. Respondent used to come to her parents house often and insisting the petitioner to come out of the family and desert his parents and other members of the family. When respondent went to her parents house for delivery her behaviour with petitioner became abnormal without any reason. She used to abuse petitioner and his father in public. Even after return she continued to ill treat the petitioner and members of his family. She never cared either for the petitioner or newly born baby. About three years back petitioner was forced to come out of the family by deserting his parents and started residing in Humcha, Hosanagar Taluk. Relationship of the petitioner's sister and brother of respondent was strained. Respondent was also quarrelling with the petitioner on that count. She was adamant and careless in her attitude. Respondent was not cooking food for petitioner for days and months and throwing vessels and other things abruptly in front of the relatives and friends of petitioner and used to abuse petitioner with vulgar and filthy language. Therefore he got issued legal notice to the respondent calling upon her to stop aforesaid illegal activities and co-operate for dissolution of the marriage and also to hand over custody of the child to the petitioner for her well being. Said notice was duly replied. Therefore he filed a petition for divorce. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
3. Respondent contested the matter by filing detailed statement of objections. She has denied all the claims made in the petition. She contended that she never treated the petitioner with cruelty either mentally or otherwise and it is just imagination being made at the instigation of his parents and sister. Respondent being loved wife to the petitioner and petitioner was working at Humcha. Respondent not only tolerated his inhuman and overt acts but also suffered at the hands of his parents and she never looked after by petitioner and his parents properly. Petitioner denied her minimum necessities in life still respondent tolerated his inhuman acts. When he persisted in his illegal acts respondent was constrained to file a petition seeking grant of reliefs including monetary relief under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and maintenance of `1,500/- was granted. She preferred an appeal as the said amount was inadequate. In appeal amount was enhanced to `3,500/- per month. However after enquiry maintenance was fixed at `5,000/- for her and her daughter who was then aged about 8 years. She contends that this petition is counter blast case for the dispute between her brother and petitioner's sister. When she was troubled for dowry she was forced to lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police against petitioner. It is thereafter this petition is filed. Therefore she sought for dismissal of the petition.
On the aforesaid pleadings trial court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether petitioner proves that respondent has treated him with cruelty?
2. Whether the petitioner entitled for decree of divorce?"
4. Petitioner to substantiate his claim examined himself as PW-1, examined his father as PW-2 and also examined one witness PW-3 and produced documents which were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-3. Respondent examined herself as RW-1. Trial court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record held that evidence did not establish cruelty by the respondent. Therefore petition came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order present appeal is filed.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner assailing the impugned order contends trial court was in error in dismissing the petition on the ground that this petition is filed as a counter blast for the dispute between brother of respondent and petitioner's sister. Respondent has filed false complaint against the petitioner and thereafter she did not prosecute the matter. Respondent is insulting the petitioner abusing him in filthy language. He being a teacher and his father also being a retired teacher they are not used to this treatment and therefore he submits a case of cruelty is made out. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
6. We do not see any substance in the said contention. Evidence on record discloses petitioner married respondent and on the same day respondent's brother married petitioner's sister. It was an arranged marriage. After marriage respondent has given birth to a female child. After delivery she came back to petitioner. They lived together and thereafter it is in evidence that on his own he himself voluntarily took respondent to Humcha and made rented house. They lived together. It is thereafter she was sent out of the house and then petition is filed making allegations. As rightly pointed out by trial court because of dispute between petitioner's sister and respondent's brother which now has resulted in a decree of divorce, now an attempt is made to obtain decree against respondent. The fact that respondent was visiting her father cannot be a ground for divorce. There is no evidence on record to show that she was not cooking and throwing utensils on his face or abusing him in filthy language. On the contrary evidence on record shows after marriage they lived happily, a child was born and thereafter made separate house and they lived there for two years together and present litigation appears is a spill over of litigation between petitioner's sister and respondent's brother. It was contended that respondent has doubted fidelity of petitioner. If there is any truth in what she says it is for the petitioner to correct himself. When she was sent out she was constrained to file a petition under the provisions of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Now after contest maintenance is fixed at `5,000/- and now daughter is attending school. Petitioner pleads ignorance about his daughter attending to school or whether she is in which school which shows the interest he has in his daughter. When there is demand for dowry promptly respondent has lodged a complaint. Merely because she did not pursue the complaint that act does not amount to cruelty so as to seek a decree for divorce. It is clear from the evidence on record the petitioner is trying to make out a case as a counter blast for litigation between petitioner's sister and respondent's brother. Respondent's brother is successful in getting divorce. The trial court on proper appreciation of evidence has rightly held case of cruelty pleaded by petitioner is not made out. We do not find any illegality in the said order. No merits. Appeal dismissed.
Application for condonation of delay is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SBN
*****************
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
No comments:
Post a Comment