- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH 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. 4328 OF 2020 (FC) BETWEEN: SRI. R. SENTHIL @ SHIVA SON OF RAJA, AGED ABOUT 38 YARS REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SMT. LAKSHMI WIFE OF RAJA BOTH RESIDING AT: A001, PEBBLE GREEK APARTEMNTS, 115, IPTL MAIN ROAD, BROOKEFIELD BANGALORE - 560 037. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHREERAM TIMMAPPA NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. R. NAGAJYOTHI, DAUGHTER OF K RAJENDRAN WIFE OF SENTHIL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT: BHASYAM NAVARATHNA APARTMENTS, FLAT NO.4, D, III FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK, NO. 300/1, THIRUNEERMALAI ROAD, CHROMPET, CHENNAI. Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 ALSO AT NO.180, 7TH STREET, VELANNAGAR, ALWARTHIRU NAGAR CHENNAI - 600 087. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. BEAULA JEMIMA, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.01.2020, PASSED IN M.C.NO.4055/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M. ADIGA) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 10.01.2020, passed in M.C.No.4055/2016, by the III Addl.Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru (for short, `Family Court'). By means of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 the impugned judgment, the petition filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, `the Act'), has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as per their ranking before the Family Court. 4. The brief facts of the case are that: The appellant/petitioner filed petition under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage. It is the contention of the petitioner/husband that the respondent herein was his wife and their marriage was solemnized on 20.08.2015, according to the customs and traditions prevailing in their community. The petitioner and respondent lived together only for ten days and thereafter, she left to Singapore as she was working there. The petitioner was working in USA and when he tried to convince her to join him, she refused. All efforts at conciliation failed. The respondent totally neglected her. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 With these reasons, petitioner filed the petition seeking for dissolution of the marriage. 5. The Family Court, in its judgment has held that the petitioner, except for stating that the respondent did not join him subsequent to the marriage, failed to establish any other acts of cruelty either by allegation or by producing cogent and relevant material evidence before the Court. The alleged acts of cruelty against the respondent are not proved by the petitioner to show that he went to the stage of apprehension that he could not continue his marital life with the respondent and he would face danger if he continued to live with the respondent. 6. It was held that the respondent has been able to prove that the petitioner and his mother were frustrated because of the fact that they could not get much dowry or any property from the respondent. As such, they started to neglect her and decided to put an end to the marital ties between the petitioner and the respondent. It was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 held that the petitioner is taking advantage of his own wrongs and without making any effort for restitution of conjugal rights, had filed the petition seeking a decree of divorce directly. Accordingly the petition was dismissed. 7. Though several allegations are stated to have been made against the respondent, they were controverted by the respondent. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and produced the documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-10 and the respondent examined herself as RW-1 and produced the documents as per Exs.R-1 to R-8. 8. After hearing both the parties, the Family Court framed the following issues for consideration : (i) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has caused cruelty entitling him to claim a decree of divorce? (ii) What order or decree? 9. The Family Court after appreciation of the evidence and materials available on record, answered issue No.1 in the negative and passed the impugned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 judgment. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present appeal. 10. We have perused the record of the appeal and the judgment passed. It is not the case of the appellant that the judgment passed is perverse. Though it is admitted that the findings recorded in the judgment are based on the records, however, it is stated that the alleged acts of cruelty are all the more evident, inasmuch as, the respondent did not join the petitioner when he went to USA. It is stated that efforts were made for reconciliation between the parties and a meeting was arranged at the United Arab Emirates, where the parents of the petitioner were residing, for seeking conciliation. Though the respondent came to UAE, but she did not show any interest for consummation of the marriage and refused to join the petitioner. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for both side, the following point emerges for our determination. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 1. Whether the learned trial judge erred in dismissing the petition? 2. What order? 12. Our findings to the above points are answered in the negative for the following reasons: Petitioner (PW-1) in his evidence, has reiterated the entire petition averments. He has produced the marriage invitation and the marriage photographs at Exs.P-1 to P-5. The Marriage Certificate is produced at Ex.P-6 and copy of the notice issued prior to the filing of the petition is at Ex.P-7. These facts are not in dispute. In his cross-examination, he stated that after their marriage, they lived together for only ten days, and even during that brief period, their relationship was not cordial. He further stated that after those ten days, the respondent informed him that she would be going to Singapore for work and subsequently left India. He also mentioned that they met again in Abu Dhabi during Christmas of 2015, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 but he was not happy with the respondent during that meeting. Thereafter, he returned to the USA, and the respondent went back to Singapore. In further cross- examination, he also stated that he was not willing to take the respondent back to the matrimonial home. 13. RW-1 in her evidence has stated the difficulties she faced while staying with the petitioner. She also described the troubles caused by the petitioner’s mother during the ten days she stayed after the marriage. Additionally, she mentioned the demands made by her mother-in-law and stated that, due to the intervention of the petitioner’s mother, she was unable to lead a marital life or join the petitioner in the USA, despite her intention to do so. She further stated that the petitioner did not make any arrangements nor applied to the concerned authorities to obtain a visa for her to join him in the USA. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 In her lengthy cross-examination, nothing was brought out to show that she was responsible for the petitioner to file this petition for divorce. 14. On perusal of the records, it is evident that both parties are governed by Hindu law. According to Hindu customs and religion, marriage is regarded as a sacred union, not merely cohabitation between a man and a woman. The marriage is founded on the sacred belief that both husband and wife will support each other in Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. This union cannot be dissolved or separated simply by filing a petition before the Court, citing certain legal provisions, and making various allegations against one another. This is one such example wherein the husband files a petition for divorce on some casual reasons on the ground that the wife treated him with cruelty. Even on the plain reading of the petition averments, as well as examination-in-chief of PW-1, the same does not inspire any confidence or do not - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 create a ground to hold that the wife treated the husband with cruelty. 15. It is not in dispute that both parties found each other through a matrimonial website, contacted one another, and after understanding each other, agreed to marry. If, for some reason, the respondent’s father did not appear or participate in the marriage, it cannot be a valid ground for claiming a divorce. The respondent herself raised no objection regarding this matter. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance over the non-participation of the respondent’s father in the marriage. 16. Undisputedly, both parties knew prior to their marriage that the respondent was working in Singapore, while the petitioner was working in the USA. During the cross-examination of the respondent, it was not established that during marriage talks, there was an agreement that she would resign from her job and join the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 petitioner in the USA after marriage. In the evidence of PW-1, the petitioner failed to prove that any such understanding existed between them. The respondent, in her evidence and pleadings, stated that she was willing to resign and join the petitioner in the USA to lead a marital life. However, the petitioner’s mother insisted that the respondent should continue working and earning an income, and urged her to seek transfer to the USA, but not to resign from her job. Respondent in her evidence has stated that petitioner did not co-operate with her for getting the VISA, at least, tourist VISA, to shift from Singapore to U.S.A. In view of these reasons, she was unable to join respondent and lead a happy marital life. She was unable to get any transfer of her job at U.S.A and therefore, as insisted by mother of the petitioner, she was unable to join respondent and work and reside at U.S.A. Therefore, the grievance of petitioner that respondent did not join him after the marriage and lead marital life at - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 U.S.A., cannot be a ground to hold that respondent was responsible for the same. 17. To show his bona fide, at least the appellant- petitioner should have made efforts to obtain the necessary visa or other documents required for her migration from Singapore to the USA. However, in his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he had not made any such efforts to secure the respondent’s visa for moving from Singapore to the USA. 18. Looking at the pleadings and oral evidence, it is evident that petitioner himself was responsible for all these problems. He could have made efforts to arrange for the respondent to shift to the USA and live together. Looking at the contentions of the parties, altogether they resided for a period of about 25 days, both in India as well as in Abu Dhabi, and even during that period, the petitioner admits that their relationship was not happy. It is not the petitioner’s case that the respondent was - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 forced into the marriage or was unwilling to join him. The respondent has contended that, since it was a late marriage, she wanted to reside with her husband and was even willing to leave her job, but the petitioner did not cooperate and was influenced by his mother. Both the petitioner and his mother insisted that she shall continue working in the USA to secure a lucrative employment. Due to these reasons, she was unable to join the petitioner in the USA. Her contention appears to be probable. 19. Looking at the petition averments, as well as the affidavit filed in the form of examination-in chief filed by PW-1, it is evident that the petitioner was in need of an obedient and sincere maid rather than a wife. He appears to be expecting too much from his life partner that she should do each and every act according to his whims and fancies. Even to wear gold ornaments, she had to seek his permission. It appears, in view of his dominating - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 mentality, she was unable to lead a happy marital life. When such is the situation, he cannot blame the respondent-wife that she treated him with cruelty, therefore, he was unable to continue the family life. In his cross-examination, he unequivocally admitted that, even if she is ready to join him, he is not ready to take her back. 20. Marriage is not a child's play. In the matrimonial life, both husband and wife have to compromise and adjust with each other, so as to lead a normal marital life. In the present case, due to the petitioner’s unwillingness to compromise or adjust, he was unable to continue the marital relationship with the respondent. The learned trial Judge has discussed the evidence in detail and has rightly arrived at the conclusion. Moreover, as already stated above, even a plain reading of the petition reveals that the petitioner raised trivial issues, which could have been resolved through mutual discussion and understanding. However, neither the petitioner nor his family members made any effort to do so. On the contrary, the petitioner - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36723-DB MFA No. 4328 of 2020 chose to blame his wife for these minor issues and alleged that he was subjected to cruelty, seeking divorce on that ground. However, he was unable to prove the same before the trial Court and therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition filed for the divorce. We do not find any reasons to interfere in the said findings. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29