- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 3564 OF 2019 (FC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHITTOOR UDAYA KUMAR, S/O C V. CHALAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT No.4-1884, DURGANAGAR COLONY, CHITTOOR TOWN & DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PRESENTLY WORKING AT NEW VIRGINIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUMATHI S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KAMAKSHI @ SAPINENI RAJYALAKSHMI, W/O C. UDAYAKUMAR, D/O S. P. DAYANANDAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.II, AMRUTHA NILAYAM, NEAR HANUMANT TEMPLE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560048, ALSO AT 50-91, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 SAIRAM STREET, RAYACHOTI, KADAPAH DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. T.S. RAJARAJESHWARI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.03.2019 PASSED ON MC No.4878/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia)(ib) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 'DISMISSAL', THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Smt. S. Sumathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. T.S. Rajarajeshwari, learned counsel for the caveat- respondent. 2. The petitioner in M.C. No.4878 of 2016 has preferred the present appeal, challenging the judgment dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 Bengaluru1, whereby the petition filed under Sections 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19552, came to be rejected. 3. The brief facts are that, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 08.04.2012. At the time of marriage, the appellant was working as a Software Engineer at Wipro Technologies, Bengaluru, and the respondent was working as a Senior Software Engineer at L&T, Bengaluru. 3.1 It is stated that the appellant had to proceed to Switzerland on project work soon after the marriage. Immediately thereafter, the respondent straightaway went to her parental home. It is further stated that the appellant returned to Bengaluru in the month of January 2013. It is further averred that the respondent visited the appellant in Switzerland, during which period she conceived. The respondent gave birth to a female child on 14.09.2013 at CMC Hospital, Vellore. The naming ceremony of the child was performed at Chittoor, after which the respondent went back to 1 Family Court 2 Act - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 her parental home. Since then, she has not returned to the matrimonial home. 3.2 It is stated that the appellant thereafter went to the USA on project work. The respondent met him at the Bengaluru Airport and thereafter returned to her parental home. It is further pleaded that upon the appellant’s return to Bengaluru, he requested the respondent to join him at the matrimonial home, which she refused. It is further alleged that the respondent did not permit the appellant’s parents to visit their house at Bengaluru during the period of cohabitation. 3.3 It is stated that in the month of November 2014, the appellant was transferred to the USA and he requested the respondent to join him there, which she refused. It is alleged that the respondent denied the appellant custody of the child and also prevented the appellant’s parents from visiting the child. It is further alleged that apart from refusing access to the child, the respondent abused the appellant’s parents. 3.4 It is stated that in the first week of January 2015, when the appellant’s parents visited the respondent to invite - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 her to attend the marriage of the appellant’s younger sister, she not only refused the invitation but also threw the invitation card and saree at them and abused them in filthy language. The respondent did not attend the marriage of the appellant’s younger sister. 3.5 It is further stated that in the second week of December 2014, the respondent, along with her younger brother, entered the appellant’s house at Bengaluru and took away all her jewellery. Thereafter, it is alleged that the respondent and her younger brother have been sending threatening messages to the appellant. 3.6 The respondent, upon service of notice, entered appearance through counsel and filed her statement of objections. The respondent admitted the factum of marriage and the birth of a child from the wedlock. She also admitted the nature of employment of both the petitioner and herself. 3.7 The respondent contended that she had joined the appellant in Switzerland after availing three months’ leave. Upon conceiving, her request for extension of leave was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 rejected, compelling her to resign from her employment. It is stated that since the respondent gave birth to a female child, the petitioner’s mother did not visit either the respondent or the child at the hospital. It is alleged that the petitioner is an alcoholic and abusive in nature. It is further alleged that the appellant prevented the respondent’s parents from visiting her at the hospital. 3.8 It is stated that the appellant never took care of the respondent and the child and that all the care and expenses were borne by the respondent’s parents. It is further stated that the appellant has retained all her jewellery and educational certificates and has refused to return the same, thereby preventing her from securing employment. It is contended that the respondent was always willing to join the petitioner and that it was the petitioner who deserted her. 3.9 It is further stated that the appellant has not spent any amount towards the welfare of the child or towards the maintenance of the respondent. It is stated that during Mediation Proceedings, the appellant agreed to take the respondent back to the matrimonial home and accordingly the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 respondent joined him at Chittoor. However, it is alleged that the appellant again left for the USA, assuring the respondent that he would take her and the child to the USA once the visa was granted. 3.10 It is stated that at that time the respondent was working and, therefore, she had to return to Bengaluru from Chittoor. However, it is stated that she used to visit Chittoor during weekends and stay with her in-laws. It is contended that during such visits, she was subjected to abuse by her elder sister-in-law. It is alleged that when these issues were communicated to the appellant while he was in the USA, he neither consoled the respondent nor took care of the minor child. 3.11 It is stated that the appellant returned from the USA at the end of June, at which time the daughter was suffering from dengue fever. As such, the respondent did not immediately visit her in-laws at Chittoor. It is alleged that despite the child suffering from fever, the appellant did not visit the respondent or the child. After the child recovered, the respondent visited Chittoor, where the appellant spent time - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 with the respondent and the child. It is stated that the respondent assured the appellant that she would join him in the USA and requested him to make arrangements for preparation of the child’s passport. However, it is alleged that the appellant, acting on the advice of his mother, did not make any effort to take the respondent and the child to the USA. 3.12 The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and marked 3 documents as Exs.P1 to P3. The respondent examined herself as RW.1 and marked 13 documents as Exs.R1 to R13. 3.13 The Family Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the petitioner was not entitled to a decree of divorce either on the ground of cruelty or desertion and accordingly dismissed the petition. 4. Smt. Sumathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the respondent has refused to join the appellant in the matrimonial relationship. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant was always willing to take - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 the respondent to Switzerland and thereafter to the USA; however, the respondent consistently refused to join him. 4.1 It is further submitted that when the appellant’s parents visited the respondent to invite her to attend the marriage of the appellant’s younger sister, the respondent insulted them by throwing the marriage invitation card and the saree offered to her on their faces. It is further contended that the respondent abused the appellant’s parents in filthy language and refused to permit them to see the minor child. It is submitted that the respondent did not attend the marriage of the appellant’s sister, as a result of which the entire family of the appellant was put to embarrassment. 4.2 Learned counsel further submits that even when the appellant was in Bengaluru, the respondent refused to join his company. According to the learned counsel, it was the respondent who deserted the appellant and subjected him to cruelty. 5. Smt. T.S. Rajarajeshwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the respondent was - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 always willing to join the company of the appellant; however, the same was denied by the appellant at the instance of his mother. It is submitted that in order to continue the matrimonial relationship, the respondent even resigned from her employment. 5.1 It is further submitted that when the respondent subsequently resumed employment and the appellant proposed to take the respondent and the minor child to the USA, the respondent readily agreed, subject to the preparation of the child’s passport. However, it is submitted that the appellant later changed his decision on the advice of his mother and failed to take any steps in that regard. 5.2 It is submitted that when the appellant shifted to Switzerland, the house which was occupied by the appellant and the respondent was handed over to the appellant’s sister, who started residing therein. It is further submitted that even the house key was not made available to the respondent, as a result of which the respondent was compelled to reside with her parents. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 5.3 It is submitted that it was the appellant who subjected the respondent to cruelty and attempted to desert her. It is further submitted that during the initial period, the appellant did not show any concern for the respondent and the minor child, did not pay any maintenance, and did not even enquire about their well-being. 5.4 With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The Family Court recorded that the date of marriage and the birth of a female child from the wedlock are not in dispute. It is also recorded that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was the second marriage for both parties, their earlier marriages having been dissolved by decrees of divorce. It is further recorded that both the appellant and the respondent are engineering graduates and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 were working as software engineers in different companies at the time of marriage. 7.1 After the marriage, the parties set up their matrimonial home at Bengaluru. Within one month of the marriage, the appellant was deputed to Switzerland on project work. Due to visa-related issues, the respondent could not immediately join him. However, the respondent joined the appellant in Switzerland in the month of September 2012 and stayed with him until January 2013. During the said period, the respondent conceived. As her leave was not extended, she was compelled to resign from her employment. 7.2 The appellant and the respondent returned to India in the month of January 2013, and the respondent thereafter went to her parental home for delivery. The respondent gave birth to a female child on 14.09.2013. The naming ceremony of the child was performed at Chittoor, at the place of the appellant’s parents. After the naming ceremony, the appellant left for the USA on project work, and the respondent returned to her parental home. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 7.3 It is further recorded that after the appellant returned to Bengaluru, he requested the respondent to reside with him; however, the respondent refused to join him. It is stated that the respondent resided with the appellant only for a period of three to four months thereafter. 7.4 It is recorded that in the month of November 2014, the appellant was transferred to the USA and he requested the respondent to join him there. The Family Court has recorded that the appellant admitted to being in the habit of consuming alcohol. It is further recorded that during his cross-examination dated 25.04.2018, the appellant conveniently avoided answering the suggestion that the respondent did not possess a house key at any point of time. The Family Court has also recorded that there is no evidence to show that the appellant had handed over the respondent’s educational certificates to her. It is further held that in the absence of a house key with the respondent, it would not have been possible for the respondent and her brother to remove her belongings from the house. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 7.5 It is further recorded that when the appellant came to Chittoor, the respondent stayed with him along with the minor child for two days and expressed her immediate readiness to join the appellant in the USA. She also requested him to make arrangements for preparation of the child’s passport. The Family Court has recorded that the appellant, in order to avoid his responsibilities towards his parents, wife, and daughter, preferred to stay abroad. It is also recorded that the appellant had posted a status on Facebook describing himself as “widowed” in August 2015. Further, the appellant had sent an email to the respondent’s brother stating that he was married in the USA and was living happily. 7.6 The Family Court has concluded that the conduct of the appellant clearly demonstrates that he never intended to live with the respondent or lead a marital life. It is also recorded that the appellant did not provide any maintenance to the minor child nor did he take care of the respondent and the child. The appellant completely neglected his wife and daughter and continued to stay in the USA. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 7.7 On appreciation of the evidence, the Family Court concluded that the appellant failed to establish that the respondent treated him with cruelty. On the contrary, the evidence on record reveals that it was the appellant who harassed and ill-treated the respondent and neglected both the respondent and the minor child. The appellant failed to discharge his duties as a husband and subjected the respondent to cruelty. It is further recorded that the appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrongs committed against the respondent. 7.8 The Family Court further observed that while residing abroad, the appellant visited India and filed the petition seeking divorce on the ground of desertion. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the respondent deserted the appellant. It is further recorded that the respondent was always ready and willing to join the appellant and had no intention whatsoever to sever the marital relationship. 8. Apart from the above findings, it is noticed from the record that immediately after the appellant was transferred abroad, he locked the house in which the appellant and the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 respondent were residing, and thereafter the said house was occupied by the appellant’s sister. As a result, the respondent was compelled to reside with her parents along with the infant child. It is also evident that the respondent rejoined employment in order to maintain herself and her daughter. The appellant did not establish any independent residence at Bengaluru for the respondent and the child. The respondent and the child continued to reside at Bengaluru. 8.1 Whenever the appellant visited India, he stayed at Chittoor with his parents. During such visits, the respondent also stayed at Chittoor along with the child and returned to Bengaluru once the appellant left for the USA. Merely because the respondent resumed work at Bengaluru, it cannot be construed that she subjected the appellant to cruelty or committed any act of desertion by not residing with her in-laws at Chittoor. 8.2 It is also on record that when the appellant requested the respondent and the child to join him in the USA, the respondent readily agreed and requested him to make arrangements for preparation of the child’s passport. However, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 the appellant, acting on the advice of his mother, left for the USA without making any effort to take the respondent and the child with him. Consequently, the respondent continued her employment at Bengaluru, necessitating her return from Chittoor to Bengaluru. 8.3 These circumstances have been sought to be taken advantage of by the appellant to contend that the respondent deserted him. When the appellant himself was residing abroad for most of the time, the question of the respondent deserting him does not arise. The appellant also failed to establish that he had provided a residence at Bengaluru for the respondent and the child. 9. Insofar as the allegation of cruelty is concerned, having regard to the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Family Court, we concur with the conclusion that it was the appellant who subjected the respondent to cruelty and harassment and thereafter attempted to take advantage of his own misconduct by alleging cruelty on the part of the respondent. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:55277-DB MFA No. 3564 of 2019 10. The findings recorded by the Family Court are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. We do not find any error, illegality, or perversity in the findings or in the manner of appreciation of evidence. Even upon re-appreciation of the evidence, the reasoning of the Family Court is found to be just and reasonable. No interference is warranted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE *MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7