SRI. T H CHETAN KUMAR vs SMT. S R SHWETHA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8431/2022 (MC)


BETWEEN:

SRI. T H CHETAN KUMAR,
S/O T G HANUMANTHAPPA,
OCCOPATION: PRIVATE SERVICE
R/ NO. 160, HPO & RMS LAYUOT,
SHAKTINAGAR, MYSORE 29.
NOW R/AT PUJANAHALLI, DEVANAHLLI
DEVANHALLI TALUK DISTRICT,
BENGALURU RURAL 562 110.
...APPELLANT









(BY SRI. DESHRAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed
by MALA K N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
SMT. S R SHWETHA,
W/O T H CHETAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O SAGAVATHAVALLI VILLAGE,
DANDIGANHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 116.
...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. NAGENDRA.T.,ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


THIS MFA FILED U/S 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.09.2022
PASSED IN MC NO.104/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(IA) OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT.

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 H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)

The petitioner-husband has approached this Court, calling
into question the judgement dated 30.09.2022 passed by the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at
Channarayapatna, Hassan ( ‘Family Court’ ), in M.C. No.
104/2020 (Old M.C.No.860/2018 on the file of the Family Court
at Mysore), wherein the Family Court has dismissed the petition
filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
( ‘HM Act’ ).

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to by their
respective ranks before the Family Court.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


3. Before we proceed, we note that the respondent
had also instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Act,
which came to be numbered as M.C. No. 90/2019, wherein the
Family Court had allowed the petition, vide order dated
30.09.2022. Against that judgment, the petitioner has
preferred a separate appeal in M.F.A. No. 8682/2022. Since
M.F.A.No.8682/2022 arises out of a separate proceeding, we
have disposed of M.F.A. No. 8682/2022 in a separate
judgement.

I. FACTS OF PETITIONER:
4. Briefly stated, the facts urged by the petitioner
would be that he and the respondent-wife solemnised their
marriage on 09.04.2017, after which, they lived together for 20
days and their relationship was cordial during this period.
Thereafter, when the petitioner travelled to Dubai on account of
his employment, the respondent did not come forward to
secure a job along with him in Dubai. Instead, the respondent
left the matrimonial home at Mysuru and started to reside with
her parents at Channarayapatna.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


5. The petitioner states that he had made several
attempts to contact the respondent and asked her to resume
cohabitation, which were all unsuccessful. He further alleges
that, on occasions when his parents were ill and required
hospitalisation, the respondent refused to take care of them;
and that the respondent threatened his parents that she would
consume poison and implicate them. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid conduct, the petitioner filed the present petition
seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the
HM Act.

II. FACTS OF THE RESPONDENT:
6. On the other hand, the facts of the respondent
would be that after the petitioner travelled to Dubai, the
petitioner’s mother picked quarrels with the respondent over
petty issues and began forcing the respondent’s father to
transfer property to the name of the petitioner. The
respondentstates that she was made to work like a servant and
was told she was not from a family of adequate standard. On
account of such differences, the respondent contends that she
was forced out of the matrimonial home on 13.09.2018. In

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


November 2018, the parties had made an attempt to reconcile.
However, in December 2018, the petitioner instituted the
present petition for divorce.

7. The respondent contends that she was always
prepared to rejoin the petitioner to resume matrimonial
obligations. As such, the respondent had filed a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HM Act,
which came to be numbered as M.C. No. 90/2019.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT:
8. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the
Family Court proceeded to record the evidence of the parties.
The petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked
41 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.41 and one document
confronted as Ex.P.42 by the RW-1. petitioner examined one
independent witness as PW-2. The Respondent examined
herself as RW-1 and examined her mother Smt. Nagamma as
RW-2 but had not marked any documents on her behalf.

9. On consideration of the rival contentions, the Family
Court noted that the petitioner has failed to prove the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


allegations against the respondent, including, that the
respondent threatened to commit suicide and that the
respondent ill-treated the petitioner’s parents. The cross-
examination of the respondent was considered, wherein she
stated that on various occasions the petitioner’s father had
accompanied her to the hospital. It was noted that this
indicates a cordial relationship between the respondent and the
petitioner’s parents. The Family Court also observed that the
allegations made by the parties against each other were trivial
and cannot be termed as cruelty; and thus, the petition filed by
the petitioner under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HM Act was
dismissed.

IV. GROUNDS FORTHE PRESENT APPEAL:
10. Being aggrieved by this order of the Family Court,
the petitioner has preferred the present appeal before this
Court.

11. We have heard Shri.Deshraj, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, who would contend that the Family
Court failed to consider that the respondent had left the
matrimonial home without any reason. According to the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


petitioner, the Family Court failed to consider that the
respondent had instituted a complaint dated 02.01.2019 and
another complaint dated 10.10.2021 against the petitioner and
his parents on the allegation of dowry harassment; and that the
respondent had attempted to perform black magic upon the
petitioner, all of which would amount to mental cruelty upon
the petitioner.

12. Per contra , we have heard Shri.Nagendra T, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent, who has rigorously
supported the judgement of the Family Court on all its fours
and has prayed for the dismissal of the present appeal.

V. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
13. In view of the rival contentions urged by the parties
and on a careful perusal of the material placed before us, the
only point that arises for our consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner has made out any
grounds to interfere with the order passed by
the Family Court?”

VI. REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
14. On consideration of the material placed before us,
we are also in agreement with the finding arrived at by the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


Family Court. We find that the petitioner has failed to establish
that the respondent had treated him with cruelty so as to
constitute a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section
13(1)(i-a) of the HM Act.
15. It is undisputed that after the marriage, the parties
stayed together for only about 20 days, after which the
petitioner left for Dubai on account of his employment. It was
during the period when the petitioner was away from the
matrimonial home that certain differences arose between the
respondent and the petitioner’s parents.

16. Thereafter, when the petitioner returned to India in
February 2018, the petitioner and the respondent visited
various temples together. The evidence on record indicates that
during this period the relationship between the parties was
cordial. The parties also attempted to arrive at a settlement in
November 2018, wherein the petitioner is stated to have
agreed to take the respondent back to the matrimonial home
and resume matrimonial obligations. However, in the following
month, i.e., December 2018, the petitioner instituted the
present divorce petition.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022



17. It can be seen that the Family Court has noted the
deposition of the petitioner, wherein he has made several
allegations of cruelty against the respondent. These include the
allegation that the respondent abused the petitioner’s parents
in filthy language, that she failed to take care of the petitioner’s
parents when they were unwell and hospitalised, that she
threatened to ingest poison in order to frame the petitioner and
his parents, and that she had misrepresented to the petitioner
that she had completed her diploma education before the
marriage, though she had not done so.

18. However, the petitioner has failed to establish these
allegations of cruelty by producing clear and cogent evidence
before the Family Court. The independent witness examined by
the petitioner as PW-2 also does not materially advance his
case. PW-2 was not personally aware of the matrimonial
relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. From
her own deposition, it is evident that she had knowledge
regarding the state of the matrimonial relationship between the
parties through the petitioner’s father. Therefore, the evidence

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


of PW-2 cannot be relied upon to establish the allegations of
cruelty made by the petitioner.

19. We have taken note of the Family Court’s
observation, wherein it was noted that the parties had
approximately six months’ time before their marriage to
familiarise themselves with each other and they have had
conversations during such time. In such circumstances, the
contention of the petitioner that he was unaware of the
respondent having not completed her diploma prior to the
marriage cannot, by itself, constitute an act of cruelty.

20. In her cross-examination, the respondent has also
admitted that the petitioner’s father had accompanied her on
various occasions when she visited the hospital, which is an
indication of cordial relations. This would also go to show that
even if there were any differences between the petitioner’s
parents and the respondent, they were not grave enough so as
to make matrimonial life between the petitioner and the
respondent unliveable.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


21. Further, the petitioner has urged before us that the
respondent had instituted two complaints on the allegation of
dowry harassment. These are the complaint dated 02.01.2019,
filed against the petitioner, before the Women Police Station,
Mysore; and the complaint dated 10.10.2021, filed against the
petitioner and his parents, before the Channarayapatna Rural
Police Station.
22. At this juncture, we may refer to the observation of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Talreja v. Kavita
1
Talreja , wherein it was held that mere filing of complaints
against the spouse will not amount to mental cruelty, if there
are justifiable reasons to file such complaints. The petitioner
alleges that these two complaints were false complaints,
however, the petitioner has failed to place any material on
record to establish that these complaints are false. In the
circumstances of the present case, we refuse to hold that the
mere filing of complaints by a spouse would amount to cruelty.

23. Another ground urged by the petitioner is that the
respondent had communicated to one Smt. Latha, over a phone
call, that she would commit black magic upon the petitioner.

1
(2017) 14 SCC 194.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


Regarding this contention, the Family Court noted that the
petitioner had only produced Ex.P18, which appeared to be a
telephonic conversation between the respondent and Smt.
Latha; however, the petitioner had not made any specific
statement/explanation in his evidence-affidavit to explain the
said telephonic conversation. Further, it is pertinent to note
that the petitioner had not examined Smt. Latha before the
Family Court. On a consideration of these factors, the Family
Court refused to accept the petitioner’s contention that the
respondent had herself communicated to Smt. Latha that she
would commit black magic upon the petitioner.

24. Before this Court, the petitioner has relied upon the
evidence of the said Smt. Latha, who was examined as an
independent witness in M.C.No.90/2019, that was instituted by
the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. Even in
M.C.No.90/2019, we note that the petitioner has not led any
documentary evidence to prove his allegation against the
respondent that she had attempted to commit black magic
upon the petitioner. Even before this Court, there is no
convincing material to establish such an allegation. As such, we

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


are constrained to hold that this ground urged by the petitioner
does not survive, and thus, we find no infirmity in the
reasoning rendered by the Family Court.

25. We have also noticed from the observations of the
Family Court that the parties had lived together for only about
40 to 50 days during the entire period of their matrimonial life.
The allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent
have arisen in the context of this short period of actual
cohabitation.

26. It is evident from the material on record that there
were certain differences between the parties. However, the
principal differences appear to have arisen during the absence
of the petitioner, when he had travelled to Dubai on account of
his employment. Whenever the petitioner returned to India, the
relationship between the parties appears to have been cordial.

27. At this juncture, we may refer to the observations
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.G. Dastane v. S.
2
Dastane , wherein it was observed that the Court should not
attach undue importance to the trifles, which may arise on

2
(1975) 2 SCC 326.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


account of the normal wear and tear of a matrimonial life. It is
in the context of such trivialities that one says that spouses
take each other for better or worse.

28. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samar
3
Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh , has also observed that in order to
constitute mental cruelty, a comprehensive appraisal of the
entire matrimonial life of the parties has to be made. The Court
has to consider the cumulative effect of the allegations made to
determine whether there had been a sustained course of
abusive and humiliating treatment which is calculated to make
the life of the other spouse miserable.

29. On an overall consideration of the allegations made
by the parties against each other, we do not find any conduct
which would establish a sustained course of mental agony or
harassment caused by one spouse to the other so as to make it
unreasonable to expect the petitioner to live with the
respondent. The allegations, when considered in the
background of the short period for which the parties actually

3
(2007) 4 SCC 511.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


lived together, appear to arise out of misunderstandings and
the ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life.

30. The mere existence of such differences cannot, in
the absence of circumstances demonstrating their requisite
gravity and cumulative impact, be elevated to the level of
mental cruelty. The material on record also does not establish
that the relationship had deteriorated to such an extent that
the possibility of its revival could reasonably be ruled out. We
are, therefore, unable to hold that the conduct alleged by the
petitioner constitutes mental cruelty warranting the relief
sought.

31. In the light of the above observations, we hold that
the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent has
treated him with cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-
a) of the HM Act. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the well-
considered order passed by the Family Court. The petitioner
has failed to make out any ground warranting interference with
the order impugned in the present appeal.

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55546-DB
MFA No. 8431 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010574972022


32. Accordingly, the present appeal is ordered as
follows:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and
decree dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional
Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Channarayapatna, Hassan,
in M.C.No.104/2020.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE

KNM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0