- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5721 OF 2019 (MC) BETWEEN: SMT. B. KALPANA W/O B NATARAJU D/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT AMMA BHAGAVAN NILAYA DIVISION NO.20, BEHIND VAKKALIGARA KALYANA MANTAPA CHICKBALLAPUR TOWN AND DISTRICT-562 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B. NATARAJ S/O LATE G N VASAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1(A) G. N. SHRAVANTHI D/O LATE B. NATARAJU W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT VIJAYAPURA NEAR GANDHI CHOWK CIRCLE DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 1(B) JEEVANSAI G. N. S/O LATE B. NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NANDI ROAD BHARATI NAGAR CHIKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THANUJA M. V., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A); SRI. SOWKHYA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B)) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2018 PASSED IN M.C.NO.38/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHICKBALLAPUR, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The wife is in appeal before us calling in question the Judgment and decree dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Prl. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkaballapur (the Family Court1) in M.C.No.38/2011. 2. Under the impugned decree, the FC allowed the application filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19552 and dissolved the marriage between appellant and respondent - husband solemnized on 03.09.1992 at Nagareshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Devanahalli on the ground of cruelty. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the FC. 4. Facts in brief to file the present appeal are as under: 5. The original petitioner and the respondent wife married on 03.09.1992 as per Hindu rites and customs at Nagareshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Devanahalli. From the wedlock, they have two children, a daughter by name 1 for short, 'the FC' 2 for short, 'the HM Act' - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 G.N.Shravanthi and a son by name Jeevansai.G.N. The petitioner husband was working as a Driver in K.E.B (now KPTCL) at Sidlaghatta Town. 6. It is the case of the husband that respondent was not interested to stay with him and she had started illegal activities of money lending and chit business with gathering number of persons, creating crowded environment around the residential house, using filthy language and making galata with respect to money lending and chit business. The petitioner husband on several occasion, advised the wife not to carry on the said business as the same is not conducive to the family health and environment. However, the wife reluctantly refused to carrying on the business. This made the husband and wife to live apart along with their children, male child with respondent - wife and female child with petitioner - husband. Since the respondent wife has not changed her attitude, a legal notice came to be issued to her, for which the wife replied taking false and untenable contentions. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 7. It is further contended by the petitioner - husband that in view of the illegal activities of conducting money lending and chit business, the petitioner got himself transferred out of Sidlaghatta to Chikkaballapur. Despite all his advice and even his transfer from Sidlaghatta to Chikkaballapura, there was no change in the attitude of the wife, hence he had no option, than to file the present petition. Accordingly, he filed petition under Section 13 of the HM Act, seeking decree of divorce on the ground of Cruelty. 8. Upon service of notice, the respondent wife appeared and filed statement of objections. Besides denying the averments made in the petition, the respondent taken a specific contention that earlier to the marriage, she was working in Sericulture Department on temporary basis and she had served for long period. The department considering her long standing service, confirmed her service and issued appointment letter, but the petitioner at the time of marriage warned her to quit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 the job and ordered to resign as he was earning sufficiently. Under the pressure of the petitioner, the respondent wife resigned to her job and lost her opportunity to serve as a Government employee and lost all the benefits. 9. She further contended in her statement of objection that sister of the petitioner by name Nagarathna who is unmarried, residing along with the petitioner and she colluding with the petitioner instigating him on one or the other reason against the respondent and demanding her to transfer the property standing in her name in favor of the petitioner, which she has purchased from the assistance of her parents. 10. It is further contended that both the petitioner and respondent were residing in the quarters, but after the transfer to Chikkaballapura office, they have vacated the quarters and since then residing with the parents of the petitioner. The petitioner since 1½ years, earlier to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 petition, has started neglecting the respondent and has been insulting her for one or other reason without giving sufficient food, shelter or maintenance and even not giving any education facility required to the children. She further contended that about 10 months prior to filing of the petition, the husband thrown out the respondent from the residential premises and warned her that she should execute a document of deed in his favor in respect of the house property which she owns, else she would not be allowed in the matrimonial home to lead the life and other necessities. 11. She also contended that her life in the matrimonial home was very miserable as the petitioner was not at all providing basic necessities for the livelihood. The notice issued is all containing false allegations. All the allegations of ill-treatment, harassment, cruelty as stated in the notice alleged against the respondent are false, but they were otherwise. It is the petitioner who is treating the respondent and her children with all sorts of cruelty - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 though she has tolerated the behavior for all these years, but there is no change in the behavior of the petitioner. The respondent found that to lead life with the petitioner is dangerous to her life for which she has joined her parents and living a miserable life, which is causing mental agony to the respondent. With these she sought to dissolve the marriage tie. 12. The FC after completion of pleadings, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty? 2) Whether the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent has to be dissolved through decree of divorce? 3) What order or decree? 13. The petitioner husband in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1 and produced two documents marked as Ex.P1 & 2. The respondent wife examined herself as RW.1 and produced two documents marked as Ex.D1 & 2. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 14. The FC after hearing both the parties, answered Point No.1 & 2 in favor of the petitioner husband and against the wife and proceeded to allow the petition and passed decree of divorce against the wife. 15. The FC has recorded its reasons for holding that the respondent treated the petitioner husband with cruelty stating that the respondent has started illegal chit business at Sidlaghatta with number of persons gathering at house and inspite of all warnings of petitioner - husband, not changed her conduct has been proved by the petitioner. This conduct of the respondent wife amounts to mental cruelty caused to the husband. Further observed that the cruelty may not be always violent, even words, gestures or by mere silence, non-violent amounts to cruelty and held that the petitioner established cruelty against the respondent. Further relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SANGAMITRA GHOSH VS. KAJALKUMAR GHOSH3 held that there is irretrievable 3 AIR SCW 5983 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 status between the parties and the wife herself has sought decree of divorce in her objection, passed the decree dissolving the marriage. It is this Judgment and decree passed by the FC is called in question by the wife in this appeal. 16. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner husband died and an application came to be filed seeking to substitute the children as legal representatives of deceased as he died on 09.09.2023. This Court vide order dated 16.03.2026 allowed the application relying on the Judgment of Supreme Court in YELLAWWA VS. SHANTAVVA4 and permitted the appellant to substitute the legal representatives i.e., the children in place of deceased Nataraj. Accordingly, the substitution has been carried out and the children are brought on record, daughter as respondent No.1(a) and son as respondent No.1(b). 4 (1997) 11 SCC 159 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 17. Heard, Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Ms.Thanuja.M.N, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1(a) and Ms.Sowkhya Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1(b). 18. Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry, taking us through the cross-examination of the petitioner has argued that the Judgment and Decree passed by the FC is against the evidence on record and suffers from perversity. In the cross-examination the petitioner in unequivocal terms admitted that his wife was doing Saree business in 1997- 98 for family necessity and earlier to marriage, she was working temporarily in Sericulture department and the petitioner made her quit the job and thereafter, he married her. Since the petitioner ordered that if the respondent resigns from the job, he would marry her, the respondent under pressure of petitioner submitted her resignation to the job and then married him. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 19. He further submits that in the cross- examination the petitioner has admitted that the wife has lodged a complaint against him since he out rightly thrown her from the matrimonial home. He further admits that the police have registered a case against him in respect of gambling. In that case, police have filed charge sheet against the petitioner husband. The petitioner admits as true, to the suggestion that he had lost all his salary in gambling and there was nothing left for the family, which made the wife to do saree business. He also admits in paragraph No.2 at Page No.7 of the cross-examination to a suggestion that the wife was terminated from the job in the year 1995 since she failed to report to the job, the husband answered that since he has put a pre-condition that she has to submit resignation to the work, for the marriage, as such she has not reported to duty. 20. The learned counsel further taking us through the cross-examination submits that the petitioner-husband has not at all proved anything regarding the illegal money - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 lending business or chit business, which he has alleged against the respondent - wife by examining any independent witnesses. The FC only on the self-serving testimony/ statement of the petitioner and without considering the admissions in the cross-examination and in the absence of any documentary evidence except the two documents, i.e., legal notice and acknowledgement which were produced by the husband, granted the decree of divorce. With this learned counsel sought to allow the appeal. 21. In contrast, Ms.Thanjua, learned counsel supporting the Judgment and decree of the FC, submitted that the FC has considered the entire material before it as well as the oral evidence, rightly passed the judgment and decree which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 22. Having considered the rival submission, we have gone through the Judgment and the entire appeal paper as well as the TCR. 23. A perusal of the Judgment passed by the FC, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the wife the reason assigned is just opposite to the evidence i.e., the admissions in the cross-examination of PW.1. The FC especially at Paragraph No.14 of the Judgment has stated that the wife has unchallenged the evidence of PW.1 which we find from the cross-examination is just opposite to the said conclusion. The husband has admitted all the suggestions put by the wife regarding his condition for resignation, his involvement in a case filed by the police for involvement in gambling activities and filing of charge sheet against him, he had lost all his earning in the gambling, the wife looking after the family by doing Saree business and wife filing a complaint against him for out rightly throwing her out from the matrimonial home. In the teeth of all these admissions, the reasoning of the FC - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 at paragraph No.14 is perverse, as such the same is unsustainable in law. The husband has not at all examined any independent witness to prove the allegation that the wife was doing money lending business and chit business. The FC has failed to consider these important aspects of the matter and erroneously granted decree of divorce. 24. As could be seen from the Judgment and evidence, for the wife to live apart from the house is perhaps the reason that she was treated with cruelty by the husband which is clear from the admissions given by him in the cross-examination. 25. The institution of marriage is a sacramental tie which cannot be set at naught on mere asking by one of the spouse without proving the ingredients contained in the provisions under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under which the petition was moved for divorce. In our considered opinion, the FC without looking into the admissions and appreciating the same in a wrong direction - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 stated that the wife has unchallenged the evidence of PW.1. In these circumstances, the Judgment and decree passed by the FC suffers from numerous infirmities and errors so also perverse. In the absence of any substantial evidence by husband to prove the allegation stated in the petition, the petition filed by the husband deserves to be rejected. 26. We having considered the materials on record and in view of the admission by the husband, are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not proved his allegations made in the petition. Accordingly, the Judgment and decree dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkaballapur in M.C.No.38/2011 is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. 27. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The petition filed by the husband seeking decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is hereby - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23198-DB MFA No. 5721 of 2019 dismissed. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5