SMT AARATI vs SADASHIVAYYA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202828 OF 2025 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ARATI
W/O SADASHIVAYYA ARAKERIMATH,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O JALANAGAR, VIJAYAPURA,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SRIDEVI B. ALBA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SADASHIVAYYA
S/O NEELAKANTHAYYA
ARAKERIMATH,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O HUDKO MIG NO.41,
JALANAGAR, NEAR SIDDESHWAR BANK,
VIJAYAPURA,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
…RESPONDENT
(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19 (1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE I
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA S D
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT VIJAYAPURA IN MC
NO.58/2023 DATED 16.04.2025 BY DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 13(1) (1-A) AND
(1-B) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 B) BE PLEASED TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL FILED BY APPELLANT AND DECREE OF
DIVORCE BE GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT DECLARING
THAT MARRIAGE OF APPELLANT OF RESPONDENT’S HOUSE
DATED 15.02.2009 IN FRONT OF RESPONDENT’S HOUSE AT
KANMUCHANAL VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA TALUKA IS DISSOLVED
AND THAT THEY ARE NO MORE HUSBAND AND WIFE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.07.2026
AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS
DAY, THIS COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M)
The present appeal is filed by Smt. Aarati,
challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment
th
dated 16 April, 2025, passed by the I Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura, in M.C. No.58 of 2023.
2. The appellant, Smt. Aarati wife of Sadashivayya
Arakerimath, was the petitioner, and the respondent,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
Sadashivayya son of Neelakanthayya Arakerimath, was
the respondent before the learned Family Court.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to by their respective ranks before the learned
Family Court.
4. The petitioner-wife filed M.C. No.58 of 2023
under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion.
5. The petitioner-wife contended that her marriage
th
with the respondent-husband was solemnized on 15
February, 2009, in front of his house at Kanmuchanal
village, Vijayapura Taluk, in accordance with Hindu
customs and rituals. They lived together for about seven
to eight years, and a son was born out of their wedlock.
She alleged that the respondent-husband subsequently
started subjecting her to physical and mental harassment.
She was working as an Assistant Professor at Women's
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
University, while the respondent-husband was a member
of the Juvenile Justice Board and was residing at
Vijayapura.
6. The petitioner-wife further alleged that the
respondent-husband used to take away her entire salary
without providing money for household and travel
expenses. He also demanded money and gold from her
parental home. She stated that he pressurized her to
obtain money from her father for purchasing a plot and
constructing a house. As her father was a retired
Thasildar, she tolerated his conduct. She also alleged that
the respondent-husband was not earning, was addicted to
bad habits and depended upon her income.
7. The petitioner-wife further contended that the
respondent-husband did not heed the advice of elders.
Despite her efforts to persuade him to lead a happy
marital life, he refused to live with her. A panchayat was
convened in 2023, during which he allegedly refused to
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
resume cohabitation. She also alleged that he came to her
parental home and harassed her, compelling her to lodge
a complaint before the Women's Police Station, which was
registered as C.R.No.15 of 2023 and was pending inquiry.
She further stated that she had been living separately for
about two years before filing the petition and that, despite
her efforts to resume cohabitation, the respondent-
husband refused to join her. On these grounds, she sought
a decree of divorce.
8. After registration of the petition, notice was
issued to the respondent-husband. He appeared before the
learned Family Court and filed his statement of objections.
He admitted the marriage but denied the other allegations
made by the petitioner-wife. He contended that he had
been residing with her in a rented house belonging to one
Doddamani at Vijayapura since their marriage.
9. The respondent-husband admitted that a
complaint alleging dowry harassment had been registered
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
in C.R. No.15 of 2023. However, he contended that the
police had found the allegations to be false and advised
the petitioner-wife to lead a happy marital life with him.
He further stated that the police had visited his house,
conducted an inquiry and advised her to live with him.
10. The respondent-husband further contended that
he owned a house at Kanmuchanal village and possessed
ten acres of agricultural land. His mother, aged about 90
years, was residing at their native place. Therefore, he
denied having any reason to demand money for
constructing a house at Vijayapura or to demand dowry.
He maintained that there was no dispute between the
parties and that they had been residing together since
their marriage.
11. The respondent-husband also contended that
he had supported the petitioner-wife in her education and
career and had spent about Rs.2,00,000/- to
Rs.3,00,000/- towards her Ph.D. studies. He asserted that
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
he had love and affection towards her and was financially
stable. He also stated that he has been regularly
performing pooja and working as Archaka and earning. He
further contended that the petitioner-wife had deposited a
sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on 31.03.2021. The respondent-
husband has further contended that the petitioner-wife
owns a site measuring 30×40 feet at Kanakadas
Badavane, Vijayapur. Among other grounds, the
respondent-husband has sought dismissal of the petition.
12. After completion of the pleadings, the learned
Family Court afforded reasonable opportunities to the
parties to adduce their evidence. The petitioner-wife-Smt.
Aarati, examined herself as PW1 and got marked seven
documents as Exs.P1 to P7. Per contra, the respondent-
husband, Sadashivayya, examined himself as RW1 and
also examined one Irappa as RW2. The respondent got
marked four documents as Exs.R1 to R4.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
13. After completion of the evidence, the learned
Family Court heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for both parties and passed the impugned judgment dated
th
16 April, 2025, dismissing the petition filed by the
petitioner-wife. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the
petitioner-wife has preferred this appeal on the following
grounds, amongst others.
(i) The judgment passed by the learned Family Court
is contrary to the facts and law. It is contended that the
judgment has been passed without proper appreciation of
the oral and documentary evidence and the other
materials available on record. Hence, the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside.
(ii) The petitioner-wife has further contended that
she had established the harassment meted out to her by
the respondent-husband, but the learned Family Court
failed to properly appreciate the same. Hence, the
impugned judgment warrants interference.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
(iii) It is further contended that the learned Family
Court, without properly considering the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner-wife and
without applying its judicial mind, erroneously dismissed
the petition, thereby violating the principles of natural
justice. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside.
14. On these grounds, the petitioner-wife has
sought setting aside of the impugned judgment and grant
of a decree of divorce.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has
reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal. It is contended
that the learned Family Court has failed to properly
appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on
record and, therefore, the impugned judgment warrants
interference. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent-husband has sought to justify the judgment
passed by the learned Family Court. It is contended that
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
the learned Family Court has properly appreciated the
materials available on record and rightly concluded that
the petitioner-wife was not entitled to a decree of divorce.
Hence, it is argued that no interference by this Court is
warranted. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the
respondent-husband has sought dismissal of the appeal.
16. This Court has heard the arguments of the
learned counsel for the petitioner-wife and the learned
counsel for the respondent-husband. The trial court
records have been secured and perused. This Court has
given its anxious consideration to the rival contentions
urged by the parties.
17. In view of the rival contentions raised by the
parties, the following points arise for consideration:
1. Whether the learned Family Court has
properly appreciated the materials available
on record?
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
2. Whether the impugned judgment warrants
interference by this Court?
18. This Court is of the opinion that, before
proceeding to examine the rival contentions raised by the
parties, it is necessary to notice certain admitted facts. It
is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the respondent
are legally wedded spouses and that their marriage was
solemnized on 15.02.2009 in front of the respondent's
house at Kanmuchanal village, Vijayapura Taluk, as per
Hindu customs and rituals. It is also an admitted fact that
their marriage was an arranged marriage and a son has
been born because of their marital relationship.
19. It is significant to note that, in the petition, the
petitioner-wife has sought a decree of divorce under
Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which
deals with divorce on the ground of desertion. However, in
the body of the petition, the petitioner-wife has also made
allegations of physical and mental harassment and
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
demand for dowry. Therefore, it is necessary to consider
the relevant legal position in this regard.
20. In a matrimonial petition, the Court cannot
disregard material pleadings and evidence merely because
the petitioner has referred to a particular provision of law
in the cause title. The Court is required to examine the
substance of the pleadings, the issues arising between the
parties and the evidence available on record.
21. However, a distinction must be drawn between
considering allegations of cruelty as relevant evidence
while examining the ground of desertion and granting a
decree of divorce on cruelty as an independent ground.
Where the body of the petition contains specific allegations
of physical and mental harassment and unlawful demands
for money and gold, such allegations cannot be
disregarded merely because the cause title refers only to
Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
substance of the pleadings, rather than the mere reference
to a statutory provision, assumes significance.
22. In the considered opinion of this Court, this
aspect assumes importance in the present case. The
petitioner-wife alleges that the respondent-husband
subjected her to harassment and demanded money,
whereas the respondent-husband denies those allegations
and contends that the parties continue to reside together.
The allegations of harassment are relevant to determine
whether the petitioner-wife had reasonable cause to live
separately and whether the essential ingredients of
desertion have been established. Under Section 13(1)(ib)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, desertion must be established
for a continuous period of at least two years immediately
preceding the presentation of the petition.
23. At the same time, this Court must exercise
caution in considering cruelty as an independent ground
for divorce, particularly when the petition is presented
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
primarily on the ground of desertion, and cruelty is not
expressly stated as an independent ground in the cause
title or the prayer. Ordinarily, a decree of divorce cannot
be granted on an independent ground merely because
evidence relating to that ground is available on record. The
pleadings must disclose the case that the opposite party
was required to meet, and the Court must avoid deciding
the matter on a ground that was not properly pleaded.
24. Nevertheless, the present petition, read as a
whole, sufficiently raises cruelty as a ground for divorce,
the mere omission to refer to the corresponding statutory
provision in the cause title may not, by itself, be decisive.
The Court must examine the precise pleadings, the relief
sought and the opportunity afforded to the respondent to
meet the allegations before granting relief on that basis.
25. In the present case, even though the petitioner-
wife has not expressly sought a decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty in the prayer column, specific allegations
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
of physical and mental harassment have been made in the
body of the petition. The respondent-husband has had an
opportunity to meet those allegations and has specifically
denied them in his defence.
26. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, merely because the petitioner-wife has invoked
Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the cause
title, the allegations of physical and mental harassment
made in the body of the petition cannot be ignored.
27. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the
petition requires consideration with reference to the
pleadings and evidence relating to both desertion and the
alleged cruelty, subject to the applicable legal
requirements. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of
law, this Court now proceeds to examine the evidence
available on record.
28. The petitioner-wife has examined herself as
PW1. She has filed her affidavit in lieu of her examination-
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
in-chief under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, reiterating the averments made in the petition.
In addition, she has made certain further improvements.
29. It is necessary to note that, at page No.2 of her
affidavit filed in lieu of her examination-in-chief, the
petitioner-wife has alleged that the respondent-husband
was suspecting her fidelity and, on that ground, used to
beat her every day and subject her to mental torture.
However, such allegations are conspicuously absent in the
pleadings. Further, at page No.2 of the said affidavit, the
petitioner-wife has stated that, about five to six months
prior to the filing of the petition, her well-wishers and
family elders had convened a panchayat, wherein the
members of the panchayat and the elders advised the
respondent-husband to mend his ways. Thereafter, the
petitioner-wife was sent back to her matrimonial home.
However, according to her, on the very same day, the
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
respondent-husband again assaulted her and drove her
out of the matrimonial home.
30. It is necessary to note that the pleadings do not
contain any such averment. It is true that, in paragraph
No.5 of the petition, the petitioner-wife has stated that her
well-wishers and family elders had convened a panchayat
and that the members of the panchayat had advised the
respondent-husband to take her back to the matrimonial
home. However, the petition does not disclose that the
panchayat members had actually sent her back to the
matrimonial home or that the respondent-husband had
assaulted her and driven her out on the very same day.
31. Further, at page No.3 of her affidavit filed in
lieu of examination-in-chief, the petitioner-wife has
described the respondent-husband as a cruel person and
alleged that he used to subject her to physical and mental
harassment. She has further stated that, owing to such
conduct, she felt that it was unsafe for her to continue her
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
marital life with him and, therefore, filed the petition.
However, these specific allegations are also conspicuously
absent in the pleadings. Thus, it is evident that serious
allegations have been made against the respondent-
husband in the examination-in-chief of the petitioner-wife
without an adequate foundation in the pleadings. These
material improvements in her evidence compel this Court
to exercise caution while appreciating her oral testimony.
32. This Court has consciously referred to oral
evidence in the preceding paragraph because it is
ordinarily difficult for a spouse to produce documentary
evidence to establish the physical or mental harassment
allegedly inflicted by the other spouse within the four walls
of the matrimonial home or in a secluded place. Therefore,
the oral evidence adduced in matrimonial proceedings
must be assessed with due care and circumspection,
having regard to the nature of the allegations and the
surrounding circumstances.
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
33. Further, in the considered opinion of this Court,
when the petitioner-wife has introduced such material
allegations in her examination-in-chief without a
corresponding foundation in the pleadings, the Court must
carefully examine whether her testimony inspires
confidence and whether the circumstances on record lend
assurance to her version. In such circumstances,
corroborative evidence, wherever reasonably available,
assumes significance. If the petitioner-wife has failed to
place any corroborative material on record, such as the
testimony of her close relatives, family elders or
neighbours who may have knowledge of the alleged
incidents, the Court must be cautious not to accept the
allegations merely on the basis of the improvements made
in her examination-in-chief. At the same time, the absence
of corroboration cannot, by itself, be treated as a ground
to reject her testimony if it is otherwise found to be
credible and trustworthy.
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
34. The record further discloses that the
respondent-husband, Sadashivayya, has examined himself
as RW1. He has also filed his affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief, reiterating the averments made in
his statement of objections.
35. The record further reveals that, during the
cross-examination of RW1, the learned counsel for the
petitioner-wife put specific suggestions to him that he had
been suspecting the fidelity of the petitioner-wife and
assaulting her. RW1 denied the said suggestions. Though
the allegations were put to RW1 in cross-examination, the
fact remains that he has categorically denied them.
Therefore, this Court must examine the entire evidence on
record to determine whether the allegations made by the
petitioner-wife have been established. In the considered
opinion of this Court, it is necessary to examine Exs.P1
and P2 at this stage itself.
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
36. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report, whereas
Ex.P2 is the complaint lodged by the petitioner-wife. A
rd
perusal of these documents discloses that, on 23
January, 2023, the petitioner-wife lodged a complaint
before the Women’s Police Station, Vijayapura. The
contents of Ex.P2 substantially correspond with the
averments made in the petition filed before the learned
Family Court.
37. However, it is important to note that, at page
No.2 of Ex.P2, the petitioner-wife has specifically alleged
th
that, on 10 October 2022, at about 12:30 p.m., the
respondent-husband picked up a quarrel with her on the
ground that she had not brought money from her parental
home to enable him to construct a house and subjected
her to verbal as well as physical abuse. It is further recited
in the complaint that the petitioner-wife subsequently
disclosed the incident to her father, brother and other
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
family elders, discussed the matter with them and
rd
ultimately lodged the complaint on 23 January, 2023.
38. Thus, there is a delay of approximately three
and a half months between the alleged incident and the
lodging of the complaint. It is also significant that the
petitioner-wife instituted the petition seeking a decree of
th
divorce before the learned Family Court on 15 February,
2023. These dates assume significance for the reasons
discussed hereunder.
39. The record discloses that, apart from the
complaint in question, the petitioner-wife has not
produced any other documentary material to substantiate
the alleged incident. In the circumstances, the timing of
the complaint, particularly its proximity to the institution
of the divorce petition, requires careful scrutiny. However,
the mere fact that the complaint was lodged after a
considerable delay and shortly before the institution of the
divorce petition would not, by itself, justify a conclusion
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
that it was lodged with the intention of creating evidence
in support of her case.
40. This Court is conscious of the prevailing social
circumstances in which women may hesitate to approach
the police against their life partners and in-laws and may
take considerable time before deciding to lodge a
complaint. Therefore, the entire case of the petitioner-wife
cannot be disbelieved merely on account of the delay in
lodging the complaint. At the same time, the explanation
for the delay, the circumstances in which the complaint
came to be lodged and the other evidence available on
record assume significance in assessing the evidentiary
value of the complaint.
41. It is relevant to note that, according to Ex.P2,
the petitioner-wife had disclosed the alleged incident to
her father, brother and other family elders. In such
circumstances, their evidence could have provided
material assistance in appreciating her version, particularly
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
with regard to the disclosure allegedly made by her and
the circumstances that led to the lodging of the complaint.
However, the petitioner-wife has not examined any of
those persons. The record also does not disclose that they
were unavailable or that any other circumstance prevented
their examination. In the absence of such evidence, the
petitioner-wife's version does not receive the benefit of
corroboration from the persons to whom she allegedly
disclosed the incident. This circumstance may be
considered along with the other evidence on record,
though it cannot, by itself, lead to the rejection of her
case.
42. Having regard to the delay in lodging the
complaint, the proximity between the date of the
complaint and the institution of the divorce petition, and
the absence of testimony from the persons to whom the
petitioner-wife allegedly disclosed the incident, this Court
considers it necessary to scrutinise the complaint with due
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
caution. Whether the complaint was lodged to create
evidence in support of the matrimonial proceedings must
be assessed in the light of the entire evidence on record
and cannot be concluded solely on the basis of the
aforesaid circumstance.
43. Further, Exs.P5 and P6 are photographs
produced by the petitioner-wife. The photographs depict
the petitioner-wife, with a portion of her left shoulder
exposed. However, her examination-in-chief does not
contain any explanation regarding the circumstances in
which these photographs were taken or the purpose for
which they were produced before the learned Family
Court. It may be that the petitioner-wife intended to rely
upon these photographs to substantiate her allegation that
the respondent-husband had assaulted her. Nevertheless,
the evidentiary value of these photographs must be
assessed in the absence of a clear explanation regarding
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
their origin and the circumstances in which they were
taken.
44. As already noticed, according to Ex.P2, the
th
alleged incident of assault took place on 10 October,
2022, whereas the complaint was lodged approximately
three and a half months later. The dates on which Exs.P5
and P6 were taken are not forthcoming from the record.
Had the petitioner-wife explained that the photographs
were taken soon after the alleged incident and preserved
by her until the complaint was lodged, such an explanation
would have assisted the Court in assessing their germane
and evidentiary value. In the absence of such an
explanation, the photographs, by themselves, do not
establish when they were taken or whether the condition
depicted therein was attributable to any act of assault by
the respondent-husband. Their evidentiary value must,
therefore, be considered along with the oral testimony and
the other materials available on record.
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
th
45. The record discloses that, on 11 August, 2023,
the father of the petitioner-wife, G.R. Laddimath, lodged a
complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Senior
Citizen Wing, Vijayapura. The said complaint has been
marked as Ex.P7. A perusal of Ex.P7 discloses that the
father of the petitioner-wife had alleged that the
respondent-husband had driven his wife – petitioner from
the matrimonial home, therefore, she had been residing
with her father and therefore the respondent –husband
had become furious and consequently was frequently
picking up quarrels with him. He, therefore, requested the
police to summon the respondent-husband and advise him
suitably. However, the record does not disclose what
action, if any, was taken by the police pursuant to the said
complaint. Nevertheless, this Court is conscious that the
absence of material regarding the action taken by the
police, by itself, cannot be a ground to doubt the entire
case of the petitioner-wife.
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
46. Having observed thus, it is necessary to
consider another relevant aspect. The record discloses that
the petitioner-wife filed her affidavit in lieu of examination-
in-chief under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil
th
Procedure on 4 August, 2023, and her cross-examination
th
was completed on 14 June, 2024. However, she has not
stated whether her father was alive at the relevant time or
had subsequently passed away.
47. The record further discloses that the
respondent-husband examined one Irappa as RW2. During
th
the cross-examination of RW2, conducted on 17 January,
2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner-wife
suggested that her father had passed away about three
months earlier. RW2 expressed his ignorance regarding
the said suggestion. If the suggestion put to RW2 is taken
into consideration, the petitioner-wife's father might have
passed away around September or October, 2024.
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
48. It is also relevant to note that the respondent-
husband filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief
th
on 12 August, 2024. His cross-examination was
th
conducted on 13 November 2024 in part, and the same
rd
was completed on 3 December, 2024. These dates,
considered alongside the suggestion put to RW2, indicate
that the father of the petitioner-wife might have been alive
when PW1 completed her evidence and when the
respondent-husband commenced his evidence. However,
the precise date of the father's death is not established by
the material referred to above.
49. In these circumstances, the petitioner-wife had
an opportunity to examine her father, who had himself
lodged the complaint marked as Ex.P7. His testimony
could have assisted the Court in understanding the
circumstances that led to the lodging of the complaint and
the nature of the disputes between the parties.
Nevertheless, no explanation is forthcoming from the
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
petitioner-wife as to why her father was not examined.
Similarly, although the petitioner-wife stated in Ex.P2 that
she had informed her elder brother about the alleged
assault by the respondent-husband, she has not examined
him either. The record does not disclose that either her
father or her elder brother was unwilling to support her
case or that their relationship with her was strained.
50. In the considered opinion of this Court, the non-
examination of these persons, particularly when their
alleged knowledge of the relevant events could have
assisted the Court in appreciating the petitioner's case, is
a circumstance that may be taken into consideration while
evaluating her testimony. However, such omission must
be assessed along with the entire evidence on record and
cannot, by itself, justify an adverse conclusion against the
petitioner-wife. Whether the allegations amount to cruelty
or reflect ordinary matrimonial wear and tear must
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
ultimately be determined on the basis of the cumulative
effect of the evidence.
51. At this stage, it would be premature to arrive at
a final conclusion regarding the merits of the rival
contentions without examining the cross-examination of
PW1. This Court, therefore, proceeds to consider the
cross-examination of PW1.
52. At page No.6 of the deposition of PW1, the
learned counsel for the respondent-husband put certain
general questions concerning the educational qualifications
of the petitioner-wife, the date of marriage, the date of
birth of their son, the date on which she registered for
pursuing her Ph.D. and other related matters. PW1
admitted the relevant suggestions. Since the relationship
between the parties and the other facts elicited in this
portion of the cross-examination are not in dispute, it is
unnecessary to discuss those aspects in detail.
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
53. It is necessary to note that, both in the petition
and in her examination-in-chief, the petitioner-wife has
specifically alleged that the respondent-husband was
addicted to bad habits, was not gainfully employed and
was entirely dependent upon her salary. She has further
alleged that the respondent-husband used to take her
entire salary and, in turn, did not provide her with money
even for daily household expenses or transportation.
54. However, at page No.8 of her deposition, during
cross-examination, the petitioner-wife admitted that a sum
of Rs.1,20,000/- had been deposited as a fixed deposit in
Sidda-siri Bank. She sought to explain that the said
amount had been deposited by her father. It is relevant to
note that the respondent-husband has produced the fixed
deposit receipt issued by Sidda-siri Souharda Sahakari
Niyamita, Vijayapura, which has been marked as Ex.R4. A
perusal of Ex.R4 discloses that the fixed deposit of
Rs.1,20,000/- was made in the name of Smt. Aarati
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
st
Laddimath, the petitioner-wife herein, on 31 March,
2021. The receipt, however, does not indicate that the
amount was deposited by her father.
55. Neither in the petition nor in her examination-
in-chief has the petitioner-wife stated that the said
amount was deposited by her father. It is possible that,
while drafting the petition, she might not have considered
this fact necessary to be pleaded. However, the
respondent-husband had specifically contended in
paragraph No.6 of his statement of objections that the
petitioner-wife had invested Rs.1,20,000/-, out of her
st
salary, in a fixed deposit on 31 March, 2021. The
rd
statement of objections was filed on 23 May, 2023,
whereas the petitioner-wife filed her affidavit in lieu of
th
examination-in-chief on 4 August, 2023. Thus, when she
filed her examination-in-chief, she was aware of the
specific contention raised by the respondent-husband
regarding the source of the fixed deposit.
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
56. In these circumstances, if the petitioner-wife
had stated in her examination-in-chief that the amount
had been deposited by her father, the respondent-husband
would have had an opportunity to meet that specific
assertion. However, no such explanation was offered in
her examination-in-chief. Instead, she sought to explain
the source of the amount during her cross-examination.
Further, Ex.R4 does not indicate that the amount was
deposited by her father.
57. These circumstances raise a legitimate question
regarding the explanation offered by the petitioner-wife
concerning the source of the fixed deposit. These facts
require the Court to doubt her allegation that the
respondent-husband used to take her entire salary and did
not provide her with money for household expenses or
transportation. If the respondent-husband was, in fact,
taking her entire salary, it becomes relevant to consider
how the petitioner-wife was able to accumulate and
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
deposit Rs.1,20,000/- in her own name. However, the
mere existence of the fixed deposit does not, by itself,
establish that the respondent-husband never took her
salary or that he provided her with adequate money for
household expenses. The circumstances surrounding the
deposit and the financial arrangements between the
parties must be assessed carefully in the light of the entire
evidence on record.
58. It must be noted that the inconsistency
between the petitioner's explanation during cross-
examination and the material available in Ex.R4 is a
relevant circumstance while assessing the credibility of her
testimony. The weight to be attached to this circumstance
must be determined along with the other evidence elicited
during her cross-examination.
59. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner-wife
that the respondent-husband used to collect her entire
salary on some occasions while leaving a portion of it with
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
her on other occasions. In the absence of any such specific
assertion, it is difficult to understand how the petitioner-
wife could have mobilized funds and deposited a sum of
Rs.1,20,000/- as a fixed deposit with Siddha-siri Finance.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
absence of any plausible explanation in this regard creates
serious doubt about the allegations made by the
petitioner-wife.
60. Another important allegation of the petitioner-
wife is that the respondent-husband was not working or
earning any income and was entirely dependent on her
earnings. It is relevant to note that, during her cross-
examination, the petitioner-wife admitted that the
respondent-husband had worked as a member of the
Juvenile Justice Board (J.J.Board). Further, during the
cross-examination of RW.1, the learned counsel for the
petitioner suggested that the respondent-husband had
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
become a member of the Child Welfare Committee in 2014
and had continued as a member until 2017.
61. It was further suggested to RW.1 that,
thereafter, the respondent-husband had remained without
any work for a period of one year. RW.1 specifically denied
the said suggestion and explained that, during that period,
he was engaged in agricultural work and was also running
a coaching centre. The learned counsel for the petitioner
further suggested that, thereafter, the respondent-
husband had once again become a member of the J.J.
Board, which suggestion the RW.1 admitted. Thus, the
suggestions made on behalf of the petitioner-wife, read as
a whole, indicate that she has acknowledged that the
respondent-husband had been engaged in various
activities, including serving as a member of the JJ Board
and the Child Welfare Committee during the periods
referred to above. This circumstance does not support the
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
allegation that the respondent-husband was wholly
dependent on the earnings of the petitioner-wife.
62. It is further relevant to note that, during the
cross-examination of RW.1, the learned counsel for the
petitioner suggested that, as the respondent-husband was
not earning, he used to withdraw money from the
petitioner's bank account by using her ATM card and spend
the same. RW.1 denied the said suggestion. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the allegation, as put to
RW.1, is vague and lacks necessary particulars. When
such a specific allegation of unauthorised withdrawal and
utilisation of money is made by the wife against her
husband, it would be reasonable to expect her to furnish
relevant particulars, including the bank account details,
ATM transactions and supporting bank statements.
Production of such material could have thrown some light
on the controversy. However, for reasons best known to
her, the petitioner-wife has not produced any such bank
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
statement. This circumstance also creates doubt about the
case put forth by the petitioner-wife.
63. As noticed above, the learned counsel for the
petitioner suggested to RW.1 that the respondent-husband
used to doubt the fidelity of the petitioner-wife and assault
her on that account. RW.1 denied the said suggestion. In
any event, no such specific allegation has been pleaded in
the petition. Therefore, the said bald allegation, raised
only by way of a suggestion during cross-examination,
cannot be accepted in the absence of an appropriate
pleading and supporting material.
64. Further, during the cross-examination of RW.1,
it was suggested that he had filed a false affidavit, which
he denied. It was also suggested to RW.1 that he had
never spent any amount towards the education of their
son. RW.1 denied the said suggestion and explained that
their son was studying in a government school and,
therefore, no school fees were payable. Significantly, after
- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
RW.1 offered the said explanation, the learned counsel for
the petitioner did not put any further suggestion to
challenge the same. In these circumstances, the
irresistible conclusion that emerges is that the petitioner-
wife has not effectively disputed the explanation offered
by RW.1 regarding the educational expenses of their son.
65. In the considered opinion of this Court, after
RW.1 offered such an explanation, the learned counsel for
the petitioner-wife could have suggested to him that, even
if their son was studying in a Government school, certain
expenses would still be required to be incurred towards
uniforms, books and other basic necessities. However, no
such suggestion was put to RW.1. This circumstance may,
to some extent, support an inference that the explanation
offered by RW.1 was not effectively disputed by the
petitioner-wife.
66. At the same time, it may be contended that
merely because the respondent-husband had served as a
- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
member of the Child Welfare Committee and the J.J.
Board, it cannot be presumed that he was receiving
substantial remuneration or honorarium. Therefore, the
mere fact that he had held such positions would not, by
itself, establish that he had sufficient income to maintain
himself or his family. This aspect, therefore, requires
consideration along with the other evidence available on
record.
67. It is necessary to note that, during the cross-
examination of RW.1, the learned counsel for the
petitioner suggested that the respondent-husband owned
ten acres of land at Kanmuchanal village. Though, RW.1
denied the said suggestion, it is relevant to note that, at
page No.2 of his written statement, the respondent
himself has specifically stated that he owns ten acres of
land in Kanmuchnal village and also owns a house in the
same village. In view of this specific admission in the
- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
written statement, the denial elicited during cross-
examination does not carry much evidentiary weight.
68. At the same time, it is necessary to observe
that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not elicit any
material during the cross-examination of RW.1 to show
that, despite owning ten acres of land, the respondent-
husband was not cultivating the same or was deriving no
income from it. In the absence of any such material, it
would be difficult to draw an inference that a person
owning ten acres of agricultural land had no income
whatsoever.
69. Viewed in this background, the allegation of the
petitioner-wife that the respondent-husband was not
engaged in any work, was merely a spendthrift and was
spending his time without any productive activity does not
find sufficient support from the other materials available
on record. It is important to note that the appellant-wife,
Smt. Aarati, has produced a document to show that the
- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
respondent-husband had filed a petition under Section 125
of the Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Vijayapura, seeking maintenance from the wife. The said
petition was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No.561
of 2023. It is true that the wife has not produced any
material to show the final outcome of the said
proceedings.
70. The learned counsel for the appellant-wife has
relied upon the filing of the said petition by the husband,
contending that his act of seeking maintenance from the
wife itself demonstrates that he had no income of his own.
This Court accepts the contention that, in the said petition,
the husband had asserted that he had no income.
71. However, the mere filing of a petition seeking
maintenance from the wife is not, by itself, sufficient to
conclude that the husband subjected the wife to cruelty.
As discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this
judgment, the material on record is insufficient to
- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
establish the allegations of harassment made against the
husband. This Court has also found that there is
insufficient material to establish the wife's allegation that
the husband used to take her entire salary and utilize the
same for his own purposes.
72. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the mere fact that the husband
filed a petition seeking maintenance from the wife does
not, by itself, establish that he subjected her to cruelty or
harassment. Therefore, the filing of the said petition
cannot, in itself, be treated as a decisive factor in
determining whether the wife is entitled to a decree of
divorce.
73. This Court shall now consider whether the
appellant-wife was compelled to live separately from the
respondent-husband on account of his conduct and
attitude. In the petition, the wife has alleged that she left
the matrimonial home because of the conduct of the
- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
respondent-husband. In her examination-in-chief, she has
stated that she was compelled to live separately on
account of his aggressive behaviour.
74. However, as discussed in the preceding
paragraphs of this judgment, the material available on
record is insufficient to accept the allegations made by the
appellant-wife. To reiterate, she has alleged that, in the
year 2003, a Nyaya Panchayat was convened, during
which the elders advised the respondent-husband to take
her back to the matrimonial home. Accordingly, she was
taken back to the matrimonial home. However, on the
same day, the respondent-husband allegedly quarrelled
with her and drove her out of the matrimonial home.
75. This Court has noticed that the aforesaid
allegation does not find support from the other material
available on record. Further, as concluded in the preceding
paragraphs, the appellant-wife has failed to establish that
- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
the respondent-husband subjected her to cruelty or
harassment.
76. In these circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the allegation that the petitioner-
wife left the matrimonial home on account of the conduct
of the respondent-husband remains unsubstantiated.
Consequently, she has failed to establish that she was
compelled to leave the matrimonial home on account of
the ill-treatment allegedly meted out to her by the
respondent-husband. In the absence of sufficient material
to substantiate the said allegation, the appellant-wife is
not entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds urged
by her.
77. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that
the learned Family Court was justified in dismissing the
petition. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the
affirmative and the point No.2 is answered in the negative.
- 47 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11424-DB
MFA No. 202828 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030081212025
78. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal filed by the appellant-wife
challenging the judgment and decree
dated 16.04.2025 in M.C.No.58/2023
passed by the learned I Addl. Principal
Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura is
dismissed
.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(BRUNGESH M)
JUDGE
BL