- 1 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8704 OF 2023 (FC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8705 OF 2023 (FC) IN MFA NO.8704/2023 BETWEEN: SMT. DAKSHAYANI .S W/O PRASANTH (NOW DIVORCED), AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.481, KUMBESHWARA NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, KHADRIPURA MAIN ROAD, KARANJI KATTE, KOLAR - 563 101. PRESENTLY R/AT: 1011, 5TH CROSS, UMA BASAVARAJ COMPOUND KHADRIPURA MAIN ROAD, KARANJI KATTE, KOLAR- 563 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE) AND: PRASHANTH V.M.R S/O RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT: NO. 1349, - 2 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 GANGA STREET, 6TH CROSS, NEAR WIDSOM SCHOOL, DOORVANI NAGAR, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU- 16. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.09.2023 PASSED IN MC NO.6652/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955. IN MFA NO.8705/2023 BETWEEN: SMT. DAKSHYANI S W/O PRASHANTH (NOW DIVORCED) AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.481, 2ND CROSS, KHADIRPURA MAIN ROAD, KARANJEE KATTE, KOLAR-563 101. PRESENTLY R/AT: NO. 1011, 5TH CROSS, UMA BASAVARAJ COMPOUND, KHADIRPURA MAIN ROAD, KARANJI KATTE, KOLAR-563 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRASHANTH R S/O RAJASHEKAR, - 3 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT: NO. 1349, GANGA STREET, 6TH CROSS, NEAR WISDOM SCHOOL, DOORVANI NAGAR, BENGALURU-16 2. SUNDARARAJU, S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT:NO.481, 2ND CROSS, KHADIRPURA MAIN ROAD, KARANJI KATTE, KOLAR- 563 101. PRESENTLY R/AT: 1011, 5TH CROSS, UMA BASAVARAJ COMPOUND KHADIRPURA MAIN ROAD, KARANJI KATTE, KOLAR- 5663 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.09.2023 PASSED IN MC NO.542/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) AND 13(1) (iii) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955. THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 01.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CAV COMMON JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) The above appeals have been filed by the appellant/ petitioner (wife) against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2023, passed in M.C.No.6652/2018 C/w. M.C.No.542/2019, on the file of IV Addl.Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, (for short, `Family Court’). M.C.No.6652/2018 was filed by the wife under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, `Hindu Marriage Act'), for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights and M.C.No.542/2019 was filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking the relief of dissolution of marriage. 2. Both the matters were clubbed before the Family Court, common evidence was recorded and both the petitions were disposed off by a common judgment and decree dated 29.09.2023. M.C.No.6652/2018 was dismissed and M.C.No.542/2019 was allowed. Being aggrieved by the - 5 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 same, the wife has filed these appeals. Hence, they are taken up together for disposal. 3. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as per their ranking in M.C.No.6652/2018. 4. The brief facts of the case are that : on 30.10.2017, petitioner and respondent got married at Lakshmi Convention Hall, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their respective communities. After marriage, petitioner/wife went to the house of respondent/husband to lead marital life. It is stated that the respondent was residing along with his parents and younger brother in his house situated at Ramamurthynagar, Bengaluru. 5. It is contended that, as per demand of the parents of the respondent, the parents of petitioner gave golden bracelet, chain, ring and 2.5 Kgs. of silver articles and cash of rupee one lakh as dowry. An engagement ceremony was held on 27.08.2017 and marriage was held on 30.10.2017, - 6 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 as stated above, by spending substantial amount by the parents of the petitioner. 6. Petitioner/wife resided with her husband happily for three days. Thereafter, respondent and his parents started harassing her and insisted her to bring additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs from her parents. They repeatedly scolded her, beat her and harassed her to bring additional dowry. In the month of June 2018, petitioner was driven out of matrimonial home for not bringing additional dowry, helplessly, she went to her parents' house. Further, the respondent was always suspecting her character. Repeated panchayaths were held, but they went in vain. Respondent and members of his family refused to accept the petitioner. 7. On 02.09.2018, the petitioner and her parents came to the respondent's house with request to take back the petitioner. At that time also, respondent and members of his family refused to accept her. They abused them and assaulted the petitioner, her parents and relatives, because of which, she lodged a police complaint. - 7 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 8. It is also contended that she lodged the complaint to police on 08.11.2018, on that basis, a case in Crime No.500/2018 was registered against the respondent and members of his family for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (for short, 'D.P.Act'). 9. The respondent without any justifiable reasons, refused to take her back and continue the marital obligations. Therefore, she filed the petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. 10. The respondent/husband in his objections admitted the marriage and his relationship with the petitioner. He denied other averments of the petition. He contended that she was non-cooperative and even his marriage was not consummated; Frequently she used to leave his house and go to her parents' house without any intimation; her behavior was indicating that she had some psychological problems. - 8 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 11. On 02.09.2018, petitioner, her parents and relatives along with their friends came to respondent's house, committed riot, pelted stones on their house, broke the window glasses and caused damage to their house; Father of the respondent lodged a written complaint, however, police did not register it and take action on that complaint; On the contrary, a false case was registered against them on the basis of a false complaint given by the petitioner. Petitioner was not at all interested in leading the marital life; She was mentally incompetent to lead normal marital life. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the wife under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. 12. With the similar averments, the respondent has filed the petition under Section 13(i-a) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and incurable unsoundness. 13. Petitioner/wife filed objections to the said petition on the similar lines as stated in the petition filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. - 9 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 14. The Family Court recorded the evidence. Petitioner/wife examined herself as PW-1 and marked documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-5. Respondent/husband examined himself as RW-1 and marked documents as per Exs.R-1 to R-21. 15. The Family Court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the petition filed by the wife under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and allowed the petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act. 16. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both parties. 17. The following few facts are undisputed: Marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 30.10.2017 in accordance with the customs and traditions followed in both families, at Lakshmi Convention Hall, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru; that respondent/husband was permanently residing in the address given in the cause title at Bengaluru along with his parents and younger brother; that after the marriage, - 10 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 petitioner/wife joined the respondent to lead marital life; and from September 2018, both of them were residing separately. 18. For proper appreciation of the issue, it is necessary to advert to Section 9 of Hindu marriage Act, which reads as follows: " 9. Restitution of conjugal rights.—When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly." On perusal of evidence of PW-1, it is seen that her evidence is not consistent. As per her evidence, she led the marital life happily only for three days, thereafter, she was harassed by her husband and his parents for the sake of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. She has stated that, in the month of June 2018, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house - 11 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 with a direction to bring additional dowry. She further contended that her husband and his parents were suspecting her character, therefore, they were not ready to keep her in their house. In the next breath, she contended that on 06.08.2018, her husband and his parents, as per the tradition and belief, sent her to her parents' house during the month of 'ashada'; At that time, she was directed to complete her education and take up a gainful employment. 19. Petitioner/PW-1 has also contended that on 02.09.2018, she went along with her parents to the house of the respondent. The respondent and his parents did not accept her and did not allow her and her parents to enter their house. Her husband and his parents abused and assaulted them. She gave a police complaint and police warned the respondent and his parents. On the next day, she again tried to go to her husband's house, but her husband and his parents refused to take her back. She has further stated that, on 08.11.2018, she lodged a police complaint, on that basis, police registered a case against her husband and his parents in Crime No.500/2018, for the - 12 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 offences punishable under Sections 506, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. 20. It is the contention of the petitioner that her husband harassed, ill-treated, and cruelly treated her for the sake of dowry and additional dowry. However, there is no sufficient evidence placed on record to corroborate the allegations made by the petitioner. The learned trial Judge has discussed this aspect in detail, and there is no need to repeat the same. Her evidence is not natural and credible. In the cross-examination of RW-1, nothing was brought out to probablise her contentions. Hence, she was unable to prove that only for the sake of additional dowry, her matrimonial tie up was broken down. She has failed to prove that her husband, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from her society. 21. According to the contentions of the respondent/husband, the petitioner has been suffering from psychiatric problems. He provided her treatment at Spandana Hospital. She refused to take follow-up treatment - 13 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 and hence said treatment could not help her. In her cross-examination, petitioner admits this fact. But according to her, she went to Spandana Hospital at the instance of police, as well as at the request of sister of the respondent. She contended that she had no psychological problems and that she was forced to take treatment in Spandana Hospital. It is not explained as to why the police told her to take treatment. It is not her case that she was unable to inform the doctor at Spandana hospital that she was forcefully brought to the said hospital. If she had no such issues, why would she consult the doctor and take treatment? To prove the said facts, she could have produced some medical records or examined the doctor who was said to have treated her in Spandana Hospital. Of course, burden to prove that wife had certain psychological problems was on the husband. He failed to prove by cogent evidence. He has also failed to prove that she had incurable psychological problems. Hence, the learned trial Judge rightly not accepted the said ground to grant divorce. But, from the above facts, respondent was - 14 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 able to show that due to behavior of the petitioner, he was having difficulty in leading normal life. 22. It is not the case of the petitioner/wife that the respondent married her due to pressure of his parents or others. It was an arranged marriage. If both of them have interacted and got married knowing the financial status of each, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent, only for the sake of additional dowry, refused to lead the marital life immediately after the marriage, is not believable. 23. The respondent/husband was examined as RW-1. In his evidence, he has stated about the eccentric behaviour of the petitioner. He also contended that she did not allow him to have physical relationship. He has produced some photographs in support of his oral evidence. It appears, the family dispute was exposed before others when a fight occurred between the petitioner and respondent, in the presence of their parents, as well as relatives, near the respondent's house. Undisputedly, they even went to the police station in this regard. - 15 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 24. In the cross-examination of RW-1, it was suggested that, "after their marriage during October 2017, till July 2018, petitioner stayed with him in his house and was leading marital life. During that period, he and petitioner were visiting temples and going for shopping etc.," which is contrary to the contentions of the petitioner/wife. RW-1 denied the repeated suggestions of the petitioner that he was harassing her for the sake of dowry of Rs.10 lakhs. According to her, three days after the marriage, respondent and members of his family started harassing her and forcefully sent her to her parents' house on two to three occasions to bring additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs. But, in the cross-examination of RW-1, it was suggested that their relationship was very cordial and respondent was taking care of her and both of them had visited few temples and shopping. The said suggestions are contrary to the case made out by the petitioner. In the cross-examination of RW-1, nothing was brought out to prove the contentions of the petitioner and disbelieve the contentions of the husband. There were no reasons to - 16 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 discard his contentions that the petitioner had subjected him to cruelty. 25. Petitioner contended that panchayaths were held several times to settle the dispute, but to prove it, none of the members of such panchayath were examined. 26. Considering the facts and circumstances and evidence of both the parties, the learned Judge of the Family Court held that the respondent/husband proved that wife had subjected him to cruelty by not permitting the husband to have physical/sexual relationship, by engaging in repeated fights/quarrels and by leaving the matrimonial house without intimation to members of his family. Such conduct would amount to cruelty. 27. PW-1 in her evidence has stated about registering of FIR in her complaint, but did not say about status of the said FIR. No documents were produced to show that a charge sheet was filed against the husband and members of his family. Inspite of filing repeated police complaints, exposing alleged criminal acts of her husband and family - 17 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 members, she contends that she is ready to go and join her husband and lead a normal marital life. It was not explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what were the changed circumstances enabled her to join her husband and lead normal life. Therefore, these facts clearly indicate that she had not approached the Court with clean hands. 28. On considering the impugned judgment and re-appreciating the materials placed on record, the learned Judge of the Family Court has properly appreciated the evidence and materials placed on record and arrived at the right conclusion. There is no strict definition of the word `cruelty'. It has to be considered on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. On re-appreciating the materials, we do not find any error in the findings of the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge has rightly granted the decree of divorce and rejected the petition filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. 29. For the aforesaid discussion, we proceed to pass the following : - 18 - MFA No. 8704 of 2023 C/W MFA No.8705 of 2023 ORDER (i) MFA.No.8704/2023 and MFA.No.8705/2023 are dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 29.09.2023, passed by the learned IV Addl.Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C.No.6652/2018 c/w. M.C.No.542/2019, is confirmed. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order along with records to the concerned Family Court without delay. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/