SRI.VIJENDRA S/O.PRALHADACHARYA PANCHAMUKHI vs SMT.RENUKA @ RAMA W/O.VIJENDRA PAN CHAMUKHI

- 1 -
MFA No. 101148 of 2020



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE USHARANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101148 OF 2020 (MC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. VIJENDRA S/O PRALHADACHARYA
PANCHAMUKHI, AGE. 44 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE WORK, R/O. SECTOR NO. 3,
PLOT NO. 62A, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:





SMT. RENUKA @ RAMA
W/O. VIJENDRA PAN CHAMUKHI,
AGED. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. GURURAJ S/O GOPALRAV DESAI,
(MUDLAPUR), NEAR NAGARESHWAR TEMPLE,
CHITWADAGI HOSPET TQ., BALLARI DIST.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL AND S.S. BETURMATH (V K FILED),
ADVOCATES)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28 OF HINDU





YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR

Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2026.10.15
16:58:35 +0530
MARRIAGE ACT 1955, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 12.02.2020, PASSED IN MATRIMONIAL CASE NO.27/2015
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HOSPETE AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
08.10.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

- 2 -
MFA No. 101148 of 2020



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE USHARANI

CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE USHARANI)

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
12.02.2020 in M.C.No.27/2015 passed by the Court of
Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short), the husband has
preferred this appeal seeking to set-aside the impugned
judgment and decree.

2. The marriage of the appellant and respondent
took place on 18.05.2013 at Nagareshwara Temple,
Hosapete. After their marriage, they led their marital life at
Navanagar, Bagalkote i.e., the native of the appellant, for a
period of three months.

3. The appellant contended before the Trial Court
that, after their marriage, respondent was quarrelsome and
non-cooperative. She did not care for his aged parents and
also tried to assault him at his house with the help of Goonda

- 3 -
MFA No. 101148 of 2020


elements and she left the matrimonial home without
informing him. Thereafter, he issued a legal notice dated
11.06.2014, calling upon the respondent to give divorce. In
retaliation, on 01.09.2014, she has filed a false complaint
against him, thereby committed cruelty. She also filed a case
claiming maintenance. Evidently, she is not interested to
reside in the matrimonial home.

4. Per contra, respondent-wife contended that, the
appellant has a criminal background and he has all bad vices.
After the marriage, he treated her insensitively, tortured her
and neglected her welfare. In the month of January-2014,
the appellant and his family members forced her to sign a
blank paper, expressing her consent for his second marriage
and they have even physically assaulted her. Hence, she was
constrained to lodge a complaint before the Chittawadagi
Police Station in Crime No.46/2014. The appellant has failed
to perform his part of duty.

5. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence of
PW1 to PW4, Ex.P1 to 13 produced by the appellant,
evidence of RW1 and RW2 and Ex.R1 to 21 produced by the

- 4 -
MFA No. 101148 of 2020


respondent-wife, raised the following points for
consideration:
1) Whether the petitioner proves that after his
marriage, respondent has subjected him to
cruelty?
2) Whether petitioner proves that respondent has
deserted him since more than 2 years without
any justifiable reasons?
3) Whether petitioner is entitled for decree of
divorce?
4) What Order?

6. Thereafter, Trial Court answered the above points
in the negative and dismissed the petition for divorce sought
on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The operative portion
of the same reads as under:
“ORDER
Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13
of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is hereby dismissed with
costs.
Draw decree accordingly.”

- 5 -
MFA No. 101148 of 2020



7. The appellant has approached this Court on the
following grounds:
The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the material
evidence on record and admission of the respondent about
filing of criminal cases. The respondent made false allegation
of extra-marital relationship and by suspecting his fidelity,
subjected him to harassment. The father of the appellant
was a cancer patient and mother was aged, lady but
respondent has never taken care of them. In the month of
June-2014, the respondent left the company of the appellant
and hence, he had issued a legal notice. Instead of joining
him, she had lodged a complaint against him. Because of the
ill-treatment, the appellant could not pursue his higher
education.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant highlighted the
evidence led by the appellant as well as his witnesses and
the materials on record and argued that all these facts show
the cruelty meted out on the appellant. Further, it was
argued that respondent was not willing to cooperate or live

- 6 -
MFA No. 101148 of 2020


in the matrimonial home, all of which constitute sufficient
grounds to grant decree of divorce.

9. Learned Counsel for the respondent has denied all
the allegations made against the respondent and according
to the learned counsel, it is the appellant who has not taken
care of the respondent and has tortured her by demanding
further dowry, which constrained her to lodge a complaint
against the appellant. There is willful negligence on the part
of the appellant.

10. Heard the arguments of both the counsels and
perused the materials on record.

11. The points that arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court has erred in
appreciating materials on record?

(ii) What order?

12. The human mind is extremely complex and
human behavior is equally complicated. Similarly, human
ingenuity has no bound. Therefore, to assimilate entire
human behavior in one definition is always impossible. What

- 7 -
MFA No. 101148 of 2020


is cruelty in one case, may not amount to cruelty in the other
case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person,
depending upon his upbringings, level of sensitivity,
educational, family and cultural background, financial
position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs,
human values and their valued system. In matrimonial
relationship, cruelty would mean absence of mutual respect
and understanding between spouses, which embitters the
relationship and often leads to various outbursts, which can
be termed as cruelty.

13. With regard to the alleged act of misbehavior and
desertion on the part of the respondent, PW2 to 4 have
supported the case of the appellant in their chief
examination. PW2 is none other than the near relative and
PW3 is the friend of the appellant, whereas admittedly PW4
is not on cordial terms with the family of the respondent.
Hence, the Trial Court was right in not considering their
evidence to hold that there was torture and desertion on the
part of the respondent. The entire materials show that there
are allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties

- 8 -
MFA No. 101148 of 2020


and admittedly the appellant had issued legal notice calling
upon the respondent to give divorce. Though respondent has
admittedly not given reply to the legal notice, according to
her, she visited his home to answer him in person, but found
the house locked and the appellant had kept himself away.

14. In the criminal case i.e., Crime No.46/2014, as
well as in the Criminal Miscellaneous case and the present
appeal, defence taken by the respondent regarding demand
of further dowry and cruelty meted on her, were consistent.
According to the respondent, unable to bear the torture, she
had lodged the complaint. The contention of the appellant is
that criminal case is pending and it was lodged by the
respondent after the appellant had instituted proceedings for
divorce, hence, it is an after-thought and is devoid of merits.

15. FIR, charge sheet and order sheet pertaining to
Crime No.46/2014 were produced before this Court. The
mere filing of a criminal case, by itself, does not warrant a
conclusion that the respondent has committed cruelty
against the appellant. Hence, it has to be held that these
documents will not in any way help the appellant.

- 9 -
MFA No. 101148 of 2020



16. Though the appellant has sought divorce under
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Trial
Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, held that appellant sought divorce on the ground of
desertion as well. Further, it was held that wrong quoting of
provision of law cannot be a ground to reject the case and
that facts and circumstances of the case have to be
considered. In this regard, the Trial Court has raised Point
No.2, which is as follows:
“2) Whether Petitioner proves that respondent
deserted him since more than 2 years without
any justifiable reasons?”
Hence, it is relevant to discuss circumstances, if any, which
attracts Section 13(1)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

17. In order to attract Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, the appellant has to establish that the spouse has
deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two
years, immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
In the case on hand, admittedly legal notice has been issued by
the appellant on 11.06.2014, whereas marriage was performed

- 10 -
MFA No. 101148 of 2020


on 18.05.2013. Admittedly, the parties lived together in the
matrimonial home for a period of few months and available
material shows that around June 2014, the appellant and his
family members had forced the respondent to give divorce and
they had physically assaulted her. Hence, she was constrained
to leave the matrimonial home. All the above discussed facts
show that, the petition filed on 26.07.2014 that was within a
period of two years. Therefore, the appellant has failed to make
out a case of desertion.

18. Based on the discussions made supra, we find no
reason to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence,
point No.(i) is answered in the negative.

19. Point No.(ii): In view of the findings on Point No.(i),
we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER

dismissed
(i) The appeal is .

(ii) No order as to costs.

- 11 -
MFA No. 101148 of 2020



(iii) Registry is directed to remit back the trial
court records forthwith.

Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(USHARANI)
JUDGE


YAN
CT: CNB