MOHIT KUMARASWAMY vs SPURTHI SUNIL SURPUR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6482/2023(FC)
BETWEEN:
MOHIT KUMARASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O KUMARASWAMY
A-022, BEARYS LAKE SIDE HABITAT,
NO. 18, SHANTHIVANA,
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU 560 092.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S VENKATESHWARAN.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SPURTHI SUNIL SURPUR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
D/O SUNIL SURPUR,
NO.191/1, SHUBHPRADA,
ST
1 CROSS, KURBARAHALLI ROAD,
BENGLAURU 560 086.
ALSO PRESENTLY AT
NO.7, ALLEGHERY CENTRE,
510, PITTSBRUGH PA 15212 (USA)
REP GPA HOLDER SUNIL SURPUR,
ST
191/1,SHUBHPREDA, 1 CROSS,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
KURBARAHALLI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 086.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUDA B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by MALA K N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
THIS MFA FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.12.09.2023
PASSED IN MC NO.6594/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU,
REJECTING THE PETITION FILED U/S. 13(1)(iii) OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 13(1)(I-A) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 25.08.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
A dejected husband, who is unable to treat his wife
with humility, files multiple proceedings against his wife,
on one or the other pretext in order to settle scores with
her. This Court cannot permit the legal machinery to be
used as a weapon of revenge, vexation or oppression by
one spouse against the other. In the present case, the
conduct of the husband demonstrates the hatred which
he had towards his wife and that he had instituted
successive proceedings against his wife only to harass
her. All these circumstances considered cumulatively
would make it a fit case for dissolution of marriage on
the ground of cruelty.
- 3 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
The respondent-husband has approached this Court,
calling into question the Order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the
II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru ( ‘Family
Court’ ), in M.C. No. 6594/2018, wherein the Family Court had
granted a decree of divorce by allowing the ground under
Section 13(1)(i-a) and rejecting the ground under Section
13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( ‘HM Act’ )
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their respective ranks before the Family Court.
I. FACTS OF THE PETITIONER:
3. The facts of the petitioner-wife are that she is a
doctor and is presently residing in the United States of America
( ‘USA’ ). It is stated that the petitioner and the respondent
have entered into a marriage on 16.06.2014.It is the case of
the petitioner that about a month after the marriage, when the
couple were at a function, the petitioner noticed that the
respondent did not look normal and upon being questioned by
the petitioner, the respondent’s parents stated that he had
suffered a panic attack and was undertaking treatment in
Mallya Hospital.
- 4 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
4. It is only at this point in time that the petitioner
was made aware that the respondent was suffering from
paranoid schizophrenia even before the solemnization of
marriage and the same was never disclosed to the petitioner or
her parents. The petitioner contends that she felt cheated and
was also threatened by the respondent’s parents to not disclose
the said illness to anybody.
5. Furthermore, she also came to know that the
respondent is not working and most of the claims which the
respondent had made before the marriage about the vastness
of his wealth, happened to be false.
6. It is also contended by the petitioner that she had
completed her MBBS and was willing to pursue her post
graduation at USA. As such, the couple had made several trips
to the USA where the petitioner alleges that the respondent
used to continuously harass her, insult her, abuse her, and
make unsubstantiated allegations of extra-marital affairs
against her, which prevented her from focusing on her studies.
Not being able to tolerate the harassment, the petitioner is said
to have sent a message to the respondent on 04.07.2018,
conveying her desire to divorce the respondent.
- 5 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
7. As a counterblast, the petitioner avers that the
respondent’s father filed a false complaint against the petitioner
on the ground that she had committed theft of gold ornaments
belonging to the respondent and pledged the same in
Manappuram Finance Ltd. The respondent had also issued a
notice to the petitioner on 26.09.2018, whereby the respondent
had demanded the petitioner to resume cohabitation.
Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition for restitution of
conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HM Act, which came to
be numbered as M.C.No.6057/2018.
8. The petitioner also stated that the respondent had
never shown any interest to cohabit with the petitioner and that
there was continuous cessation of marital obligations on the
part of the respondent. Aggrieved by several acts of cruelty by
the respondent and his father, the petitioner contends that she
executed a General Power of Attorney ( ‘GPA’ ) in favour of her
father, through whom she filed a divorce petition against the
respondent under Section13(1)(i-a) and Section 13(1)(iii) of
the HM Act, that came to be numbered as M.C. No. 6594/2018.
II. DEFENCE OF THE RESPONDENT:
9. It is contended by the respondent that he is an MBA
Graduate in International Business from London University and
- 6 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
he was working for a reputed Multi-National Company. He
states that the couple were living together for more than 4
years and 5 months. Further, that during the entire
matrimonial life, he had spent large amounts of money in order
to keep the marital relationship cordial, which includes, gifting
expensive watches to the petitioner, taking the petitioner to
expensive restaurants, stays in luxury hotels and multiple trips
to the USA so as to help the petitioner in her pursuit of higher
studies.
10. The respondent quantifies the amounts that have
been spent by him to the extent of Rs.75,00,000/- and he
contends that having spent so much money on the petitioner,
the petitioner has caused mental trauma to the respondent by
stating that she wants to divorce him.
11. The respondent also states that the petitioner,
without the permission of the respondent’s parents, pledged
the gold ornaments during their absence to overcome the
financial difficulties of her father. In response to which, the
respondent’s father lodged a police complaint dated
05.09.2018. We may note that the respondent and his father
have instituted numerous other legal proceedings against the
petitioner and it is important to examine its effect on the
- 7 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
present appeal, which shall be set out in extensor in this
judgement.
12. Regarding the petitioner’s allegation that the
marriage was solemnised without disclosing that the
respondent was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, the
respondent has contended that the petitioner has obtained a
false medical sickness certificate and the patient registration
card from Mallya Hospital in order to make a false allegation of
mental illness against the respondent. It is also stated that the
respondent’s father had addressed a legal notice to the
concerned psychiatrist, Mallya Hospital and the petitioner’s
parents and that the Karnataka Medical Council ( ‘KMC’ ) has
initiated an inquiry against the concerned psychiatrist and
Mallya Hospital.
13. The respondent has also contended that, without
any substantial reason, the petitioner had deserted the
respondent, in response to which he issued a legal notice dated
26.09.2018, requesting the petitioner to resume cohabitation.
However, the petitioner refused to resume cohabitation in her
reply notice dated 27.10.2018, after which, the respondent had
instituted a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under
Section 9 of the HM Act, in M.C. No. 6057/2018.The respondent
- 8 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
contends that in retaliation to this petition, the petitioner’s
father obtained a fake GPA from her and instituted a divorce
petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) andSection 13(1)(iii) of the
HM Act, in M.C. No. 6594/2018.
III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT:
14. During the course of the proceedings before the
Family Court, the petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 and
had marked documents from Ex.P1 to Ex.P.16 in support of her
contentions. On the other hand, the respondent has not
bothered to cross examine the petitioner, or examine himself,
or produce any evidence in support of his contentions. The
respondent had not even addressed any arguments, and as
such, he was placed ex-parte by the Family Court.
15. On a consideration of the material on record, the
Family Court has answered issue no. (i) in the affirmative and
issue no. (ii) in the negative. Regarding the allegation that the
respondent was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, the
Family Court observed that the petitioner has produced Ex.P2,
which is the medical sickness certificate to state that the
respondent was treated for paranoid schizophrenia on various
dates before and after the marriage, and Ex.P3, which is the
patient registration card issued by Mallya Hospital. However,
- 9 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
since the petitioner had not examined the concerned
psychiatrist, the Family Court held that these documents were
not sufficient to prove that the respondent was suffering from
an incurable mental disorder upto the threshold that is required
under Section 13(1)(iii) of the HM Act.
16. Regarding the ground of cruelty, the Family Court
took note of the deposition of the petitioner that she was a
victim of cruelty at various instances throughout her marriage
with the respondent. From the petitioner’s deposition, it was
noted that the respondent used to continuously quarrel with
her; that the respondent regularly abused and degraded her;
that the respondent made unsubstantiated allegations of extra-
marital affairs against her; that the respondent insulted her and
behaved violently in anger towards her; and, that the
respondent himself does not want to continue the marital
relationship with her.
17. It was further noted from the petitioner’s deposition
that the respondent had never given financial assistance to the
petitioner to pursue her higher studies. It was the petitioner,
who had pledged the ornaments given by her parents to
Manappuram Finance Ltd., and taken a loan of Rs.2,10,000/-,
in addition to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from her father, to
- 10 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
finance her studies. Additionally, the Family Court also noted
some observations regarding the conduct of the respondent’s
father. It was observed that the respondent’s father had
instituted multiple proceedings against the petitioner under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( ‘NI
Act’ ), which was a depiction of the harassment meted out to
the petitioner by the respondent’s father.
18. From the uncontroverted deposition of the
petitioner, all of these factors were cumulatively considered by
the Family Court to come to the conclusion that the respondent
had treated the petitioner with cruelty.
19. In light of such observations, the Family Court, vide
order dated 12.09.2023, allowed the divorce petition filed by
the petitioner in M.C. No. 6594/2018, dissolving the marriage
between the parties under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HM Act.
Being aggrieved by this order of the Family Court, the
respondent seeks to approach the appellate portals of this
Court.
IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT/HUSBAND:
20. We have heard Shri.S.Venkateshwaran, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent. The respondent, in the
- 11 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
memorandum of appeal, has primarily assailed the GPA that
the petitioner has executed in favour of her father. It is the
contention of the respondent that the GPA is fabricated, which
can be seen through various defects therein, including,
improper stamp duty, notarisation being done in the USA, all
pages not being notarised and the GPA being unsigned by
witnesses.
21. We may emphasise that apart from such
submissions on the validity of the GPA, the respondent has
hardly urged any ground to challenge the order of the Family
Court on its merits.
V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
22. We have heard Shri.Prabhugowda B. Tumbigi,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife. In the
Statement of Objections , it is contended that the petitioner had
been subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment meted
out to her, by the respondent and his father. The learned
counsel would also place on record a memo dated 28.05.2026,
wherein he has given a list of cases that have been instituted
by the respondent and his father against the petitioner and her
family members, which are described in detail hereinbelow:
- 12 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
(i) Cases under Section 138 of NI Act:
(a) C.C.No.2053/2019, concerning Cheque No.
151808 drawn on ICICI Bank for Rs.30,00,000/-,
which was quashed by this Court in Crl. Pet. No.
6313/2020, vide order dated 18.12.2020. An
S.L.P. preferred in Diary No. 10217/2022 was
also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
vide order dated 03.01.2023;
(b) C.C.No.53546/2019, concerning Cheque No.
151810 drawn on ICICI Bank for Rs.22,00,000/-,
which was quashed by this Court in Crl. Pet. No.
8078/2020, vide order dated 22.02.2022;
(c) C.C. No. 14935/2019, concerning Cheque No.
151809 drawn on ICICI Bank for Rs.17,00,000/-,
which was quashed by this Court in Crl. Pet. No.
8089/2020, vide order dated 22.02.2022;
(d) C.C. No. 874/2021, concerning Cheque No.
068960 drawn on State Bank of Mysore for
Rs.15,00,000/-, which was dismissed as
uncontested on 28.12.2023 by the ACJ & JMFC,
Ramanagara; and,
(e) Complaint to the Regional Passport Officer dated
03.03.2022 to impound the petitioner’s passport
and secure her presence in India for the cheque
bounce cases.
- 13 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
(ii) Cases for cancellation of the GPA executed by
the petitioner in favour of her father:
(a) P.C.R. No. 3498/2019, which was disposed of as
uncontested on 13.12.2019;
(b) Crl.R.P. No. 983/2019, which was disposed ofon
15.05.2020;
(c) O.S. No. 26591/2020, which was dismissed by
the Addl. City Civil & Sessions Court, Mayo Hall,
vide order dated 07.01.2022. A revision petition
in R.P. No. 25001/2022 remains pending;
(d) P.C.R. No. 20914/2021, which was dismissed for
default;
(e) Crl.Misc. No. 26179/2021, concerning contempt
of court proceedings initiated against the
petitioner’s father, which was disposed as
uncontested on 07.01.2022;
(f) W.P. No. 8093/2023, seeking impounding of GPA;
and,
(g) Complaint to Police Commissioner, Bangalore
dated 22.04.2020, contending that the GPA is
fabricated.
(iii) Police Complaints filed against the petitioner
and her parents:
(a) Complaint to Police Commissioner dated
03.09.2019, on the allegation of theft and for
revocation of passport;
- 14 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
(b) Complaint to Kodigehalli Police Station dated
05.09.2018, on the allegation of theft and for
revocation of passport;
(c) Complaint to Kodigehalli Police Station dated
13.09.2018, on the allegation of theft; and,
(d) Complaint to Police Commissioner dated
17.05.2019, alleging extortion against the
petitioner’s father.
(iv) Complaints regarding medical sickness
certificate of the respondent:
(a) Complaint to Cubbon Park Police Station dated
26.08.2019, against the petitioner and the
concerned psychiatrist from Mallya Hospital;
(b) Consumer Complaint No. 1449/2019, against
Mallya Hospital and the concerned psychiatrist,
which was dismissed for lack of evidence on
31.10.2019;
(c) Complaint to Karnataka Medical Council, against
Mallya Hospital and the concerned psychiatrist.
(v) Complaints against the petitioner and her
brother regarding their medical admission under
OBC Quota:
(a) Complaint to CET dated 10.09.2018, against the
petitioner’s brother;
(b) Complaint to CET dated 05.09.2018 and
22.03.2019, against the petitioner;
(c) Complaint to Nada Kacheri, Rajajinagar, dated
04.07.2019, against the petitioner’s brother;
- 15 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
(d) Complaint to Dy. Tahsildar, Rajajinagar, dated
19.07.2019, against the petitioner’s brother;
(e) Complaint to Karnataka Medical Council dated
25.11.2019, against the petitioner;
(f) Complaint to Principal, J.N. Medical College,
Belgaum, dated 30.12.2019, 16.03.2020 and
14.08.2020, against the petitioner’s brother;
(g) Complaint to Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate
regarding the petitioner and her brother’s medical
admission;
(h) Notice dated 19.09.2020, against the petitioner
and her brother;
(i) E-mail notice dated 04.08.2021, addressed to the
CEO of Allegheny General Hospital, against the
petitioner and her brother; and,
(j) P.C.R. No. 17356/2021 dated 14.09.2021,
against the petitioner and her brother.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also
submit that the respondent’s father has manipulated the
cheques that were left behind by the petitioner in the
matrimonial home and has falsely instituted the cheque bounce
cases against the petitioner, which has now been quashed by
the orders of this Court, as noted hereinabove. The petitioner
had also instituted a Police Complaint dated 12.03.2020 in
- 16 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
F.I.R.No.0043/2020 at the Kodigehalli Police Station against the
respondent for the misuse of her cheques.
24. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in-spite of sufficient opportunity being available,
the respondent had not adduced any oral or documentary
evidence in support of his case before the Family Court; and
thus, the Family Court has rightly ordered for dissolution of the
marriage between the parties.
VI. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
25. Upon hearing the rival contentions and on careful
perusal of the records of the case before us, the only point that
requires our adjudication is:
‘Whether the respondent has made out any
grounds to interfere with the order of the
Family Court?’
VII. REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
26. The primary challenge, which the respondent has
raised to the order of the Family Court, is regarding the GPA
that is executed by the petitioner in favour of her father. We
have perused the entire order sheet of the Family Court, from
which it appears that the respondent had also raised a similar
challenge before the Family Court and had failed. The Family
- 17 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
Court, vide order dated 31.08.2021, has noted the proceedings
in Crl.Misc.No.8919/2019, wherein the respondent had
challenged the validity of the GPA. The Sessions Judge therein,
vide order dated 14.11.2019, had upheld the validity of the
said GPA since the GPA was notarised in Pittsburgh, USA, and
had evidentiary value in India as per Section 85 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
27. It was noted by the Family Court that the
respondent has not placed any material on record to show that
he has challenged this finding of the Sessions Judge in Crl.
Misc. No. 8919/2019. As such, the Family Court refrained from
re-appreciating the validity of the GPA. It was also noted by the
Family Court that a person may prosecute a case through a
GPA holder and dismissed the respondent’s challenge, vide
order dated 31.08.2021.
28. Against this order of the Family Court dated
31.08.2021, the respondent had preferred a review application
dated 15.09.2021. During the pendency of this review
application, the respondent challenged the Family Court’s order
dated 31.08.2021, in W.P. No. 16464/2021, wherein this Court
had directed the Family Court to consider the review
- 18 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
application. Thereafter, the Family Court dismissed the review
application, vide order dated 09.08.2023.
29. We may also note that the respondent had also
instituted a suit in O.S.No.26591/2020, specifically praying for
declaring the said GPA as null and void, which was also
dismissed as not maintainable.
30. We have noted the observations of the Family Court
in its order dated 09.08.2023, that the respondent is in the
habit of filing one or the other application to unduly delay the
matter instead of defending the case on merits. Considering the
conduct of the respondent, we completely agree with the
findings of the Family Court. Further, even before us, the
respondent has not placed any such material on record to show
that he has preferred a challenge in Crl.Misc.No.8919/2019. In
such circumstances, the observations in
Crl.Misc.No.8919/2019, have attained finality, as such, we do
not wish to re-appreciate the findings therein. As such, we
discard the respondent’s primary challenge in the present
appeal and proceed to analyse the case on its merits.
31. At this juncture, we would refer to some provisions
of the HM Act, as reproduced hereunder:
- 19 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
“ 13. Divorce.— (1) Any marriage solemnized,
whether before or after the commencement of this
Act, may, on a petition presented by either the
husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of
divorce on the ground that the other party—
[(i) ; or *
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage,
treated the petitioner with cruelty; or
(ib) ; or] *
[(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has
been suffering continuously or intermittently from
mental disorder of such a kind and to such an
extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be
expected to live with the respondent.
Explanation: In this clause–
(a) the expression “mental disorder” means
mental illness, arrested or incomplete
development of mind, psychopathic disorder or
any other disorder or disability of mind and
includes schizophrenia;
(b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means
a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether
or not including sub-normality of intelligence)
which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously
irresponsible conduct on the part of the other
party, and whether or not it requires or is
susceptible to medical treatment; or].....”
32. We would firstly analyse the ground that the
respondent was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. It is the
contention of the petitioner that the respondent was suffering
from this mental disorder even before the marriage and that
such a fact was concealed from the petitioner. The petitioner
- 20 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
would also place on record Ex.P2, which is the medical sickness
certificate to state that the respondent was treated for paranoid
schizophrenia on various dates prior to and after the marriage,
and Ex.P3, which is the patient registration card issued by
Mallya Hospital. On the other hand, the respondent makes a
contention that he is not suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
Apart from such a bland statement, the respondent has not
taken the pains to provide any oral or documentary evidence in
support of his contention.
33. The Family Court, on a consideration of the
contention of the petitioner and the evidence adduced in Ex.P2
and Ex.P3, observed that the petitioner had not examined the
concerned psychiatrist, and as such, the petitioner had not
established her claim under Section 13(1)(iii) of the HM Act.
34. At this stage, we may state as to what are the
requirements to grant divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the
HM Act.
35. It is trite law that the mere existence of a mental
disorder will not create a ground for divorce under the HM Act.
The threshold is that the mental disorder must be incurable or
to such an extent and such a kind that the petitioner cannot be
reasonably expected to live with the respondent. The mental
- 21 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
disorder we are concerned with in this case is paranoid
schizophrenia. This is an illness that is characterised by
shallowness of emotions, hallucinations, loss of touch from
reality, a distorted personality, among other symptoms. In its
paranoid form, schizophrenia may be accompanied by
hallucinations or delusions of persecution.
36. No doubt, the burden of proving such a mental
disorder is on the person who asserts it, i.e., the petitioner
herein. The standard to which such a mental disorder has to be
proved is beyond reasonable doubt. In order to satisfy this
Court about the existence of such a mental illness, the
relevance of medical/expert testimony was considered by the
1
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharda v. Dharmpal , wherein it
was observed as follows:
“ 11. It is trite law that for the purpose of grant of a
decree of divorce what is necessary is that the petitioner
must establish that unsoundness of mind of the
respondent is incurable or his/her mental disorder is of
such a kind and to such an extent that he cannot
reasonably be expected to live with his/her spouse.
Medical testimony for arriving at such finding
although may not be imperative but undoubtedly
would be of considerable assistance to the court.
We may, however, hasten to add that such
medical testimony being the evidence of experts
would not leave the court from the obligation of
satisfying itself on the point in issue beyond
1
(2003) 4 SCC 493.
- 22 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
reasonable doubt. Relevance of medical evidence,
therefore, cannot be disputed .
..........
16. Having regard to the complexity of the
situation, the doctor's opinion may be of utmost
importance for granting or rejecting a prayer for a
decree of divorce. The question is as to whether a
mental disorder is curable can be the subject-
matter of determination of by a court of law
having regard to the expert medical opinion and
particularly the ongoing development in the
scientific and medical research in this direction. ”
(emphasis supplied)
37. It is in light of this law that we have analysed the
material on record placed by the petitioner. To establish her
contention that the respondent is suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia, the only piece of evidence that the petitioner has
produced is at Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, which are the medical sickness
certificate and the patient registration card at Mallya Hospital,
respectively. However, no medical witness has been examined
and no other document is produced to show that the mental
disorder has reached such an extent that the petitioner cannot
be reasonably expected to live with the respondent. In such
circumstances, merely labelling a person as schizophrenic,
without proving the adverse effects of schizophrenia on the
marital life, will not be sufficient to prove that the marriage has
to be dissolved under Section 13(1)(iii) of the HM Act.
- 23 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
38. In this regard, we may additionally note the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Narain
2
Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta, wherein it was held as follows:
“ 33. This medical concern against too readily
reducing a human being into a functional non-entity
and as a negative unit in family or society is law
concern also and is reflected, at least partially, in
the requirements of Section 13(1)(iii). In the last
analysis, the mere branding of a person as
schizophrenic will not suffice. For purposes of
Section 13(1)(iii) “schizophrenia” is what
schizophrenia does. ”
(emphasis supplied)
39. Considered in this light, we are constrained to hold
that the petitioner has failed to establish the ground under
Section 13(1)(iii) of the HM Act, beyond all reasonable doubt.
As such, on this limited point, we agree with the order of the
Family Court in rejecting the petitioner’s ground under Section
13(1)(iii) of the HM Act.
40. We now advert to the ground of cruelty urged by
the petitioner. The petitioner has highlighted various instances
wherein she was subjected to cruelty at the behest of the
respondent and his father. These instances include the
allegations that the respondent used to continuously quarrel
2
(1988) 4 SCC 247.
- 24 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
with her; that the respondent regularly abused and degraded
her; that the respondent made unsubstantiated allegations of
extra-marital affairs against her; that the respondent insulted
her and behaved violently in anger towards her; that the
respondent himself does not want to continue the marital
relationship with the petitioner; and, that all marital obligations
between the couple had ceased.
41. Additionally, the petitioner has placed on record a
memo dated 28.05.2026, wherein she has produced a list of
cases instituted by the respondent and his father against the
petitioner, her father and her brother. The list of these cases
has been captured in the foregoing part of this judgment, from
which it can be discerned that in many of these cases, this
Court has quashed them or they have been dismissed by the
court of first instance for non-prosecution.
42. We have also perused the complete order sheet of
the Family Court, wherein, it can be seen that instead of
leading evidence on the merits of the matter, the respondent
has adopted delay tactics to unduly protract the litigation so as
to subject the petitioner to harassment from all possible angles.
43. The respondent has not bothered enough to enter
the witness box or mark any documentary evidence in support
- 25 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
of his contentions. The respondent has also not taken the
trouble to cross-examine the petitioner. In such circumstances,
all the allegations made by the petitioner against the
respondent remain uncontroverted.
44. We may also note that the standard of proof
required to prove the ground of cruelty isa mere preponderance
of probabilities. When the respondent has failed to adduce any
contrary material on record, this Court may presume the
existence of the facts as stated by the petitioner and draw an
adverse inference against the contentions of the respondent,
under Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
( ‘BSA’ ).
45. On examining the record, it is seen that not only
has the respondent filed multiple cases against the petitioner,
but he has subjected the petitioner and her family members to
immense humiliation through repeated filing of
cases/complaints. The respondent’s conduct would depict that
when the petitioner filed the present divorce petition, the
respondent was enraged by her act. Being so enraged, the
respondent, with an ulterior motive, unleashed the coercive
arm of the law against the petitioner, only to harass her.
- 26 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
46. The law is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme
3
Court in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa , that institution of
multiple proceedings against a spouse would amount to cruelty,
especially when such cases are made to harass the spouse.
47. The petitioner has also contended that the
respondent had made unsubstantiated allegations of extra-
marital affairs against her. The respondent, in his Statement of
Objections before the Family Court, has also made an allegation
that the petitioner wanted to settle down in the USA with
another wealthy person; however, the respondent has not led
any evidence in support of his case. In such circumstances, we
are constrained to presume the truthfulness of the petitioner’s
contentions that the respondent had made unsubstantiated
allegations of extra-marital affairs against her. As observed by
4
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra v. K. Meena , making
such allegations would be torturous and would amount to
mental cruelty.
48. A cumulative consideration of the entire
matrimonial life of the parties would depict the sustained
course of humiliating conduct that the respondent has shown
3
(2013) 5 SCC 226.
4
(2016) 9 SCC 455.
- 27 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
towards the petitioner and that the petitioner has been
subjected to acute mental agony and suffering, so much so that
the petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live with the
respondent anymore.
49. The number of cases instituted by the respondent
against the petitioner and her family members, would
demonstrate the hatred which the respondent has towards the
petitioner and an indication of the marital disharmony between
the parties. The respondent has converted the legal machinery
into a weapon of revenge against his wife, which cannot be
countenanced.
50. The allegations made by the petitioner against the
respondent and the conduct of the respondent himself would go
to show that the relationship between the parties had been
persistently strained beyond the ordinary wear and tear of the
life. As such, it is a fit case for dissolving the present marriage
on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HM
Act.
51. In light of such observations, we are in complete
agreement with the reasoning rendered by the Family Court
that the petitioner has established her ground of cruelty against
the respondent.
- 28 -
MFA No. 6482 of 2023
52. In light of the above, the appeal is ordered as
follows:
ORDER
(i) The present appeal preferred by the respondent-
husband is hereby dismissed , confirming the order
of the Family Court, dated 12.09.2023, in
M.C.No.6594/2018.
(ii) In view of the tendency of the respondent to
institute multiple proceedings against the petitioner
and her family members, as a manner of
harassment, we deem it appropriate to restrain the
respondent from interfering with the life of the
petitioner by instituting or causing to be instituted
frivolous proceedings against her or her family
members.
Pending I.As if any, do not survive for consideration,
accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE
KNM