2023 Harsha Chandrappa v.

Bhagya Kar 151

counsel for the respondent. The judgmentscited M.C.No. 161/2010 by the Family Court,
are not applicable to the present case on hand. Mysore, by which the petition filed by the
appellant seeking dissolution of marriage,
14. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to was
pass the following: dismissed.
ORDER 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this
(a) Writ Petition stands allowed. appeal are that the marriage of the appellant
(b) Impugned modified decree dated and respondent was solemnized on 22.04.2004
at Mysore as per customs and rites and out of
17.12.2018 passed in PLC No.937/2018 by Lok the wedlock a female child was born on
Adalath, Belagavi vide Annexure-D is set-aside. 23.08.2005. It is averred that the respondent
Petition allowed. joined the matrimonial home at Bangalore,
where the appellant was working in a private
company. It is further averred that after the
AIR 2023 KARNATAKA 151 birth of the child the respondent started show
:AIROnline 2023 KAR 301 ing different attitude towards the appellant and
ALOKARADHEAND started to quarrel with him and his parents by
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, JJ. using unparliamentary words. It is also averred
Harsha Chandrappa v. Bhagya. that the respondent used to quarrel and create
embarrassment in social gatherings in front of
MFA No. 2403 of 2012, D/- 5-4-2023. relatives and friends.
Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), 3. It is pleaded that the respondent was not
S.13(1)(ia) Dissolution of marriage doing household work, used to misbehave with
Cruelty by wife -Wife misbehaved with .theappellant and his family members, she was
husband and his parents, threatened hus adamant, ill tempered, and she used to threaten
bandof filing false cases against him and the appellant of filing false cases against him
also threatened to commit suicide Wit and his parents and also threatened to commit
nesses categorically stated that wife used suicide. It is further pleaded that respondent
to misbehave and pick up quarrel causing used to leave the matrimonial home without
embarrassment and humiliation in front informing the appellant and she was in the habit
of friends and family members on many of frequently visiting and staying with her par
occasions Allegations of cruelty found ents and on every occasion, the appellant had
to be consistent from beginning of mar tobring her back to the matrimonial home. It
riage till wife left.matrimonial home is also pleaded that without the consent and
Wife left matrimonial home without any without any reason the respondent left the màtri
justifiable reason and failed to rejoin hus monial home on 05.04.2007 and never came
band - Parties living separately for more back, hence the appellant had sent legal notice
than 14 years Order rejecting applica- requesting her to rejoin, which went in vain.
tion for dissolution of marriage, set aside 4. The respondent has entered appearance
- Decree of dissolu tion of marriage
granted. (Paras 13, 17) before the Family Court and filed the state
Cases Referred:
ment of objections. The respondent has admit
Chronological Paras ted the relationship, birth of the child and also
AIR 2016 SC4599 10 admitted that the appellant was working in a
AIROnline 2007 SC 347 10 Private Company in Bangalore. The respondent
UID:
)39U/0
AIR 2003 SC 2462 10 has specifically denied the allegations of cru
AIROnline 2000BOM 22 10 elty and desertion by contending that it is the
L. Govindraj, for Petitioner; Venkatesh B. appellant and his parents, who have caused cru
Pyagi, for Respondent. elty on therespondent, they used to find fault
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.;-This ap with each and every work of the respondent.
peal under Section 19(1)of the Family Courts 5. It is averred that the respondent's par
Act, 1984, has been filed against the judg- ents have given dowry as per the demand of
ment and decree dated 20.01.2012 passed in the appellant's family. It is further averred that
 AIR
152 Kar Harsha Chandrappa v. Bhagya
appellant and her in-laws have not provided cruelty, the same has not been appreciated by
that
proper medical treatiment to the respondent, the Family Court. It is also contended
hence she stayed with her parents and gave Family Court has committed error in giving
birth to a female child on 23.08.2005. It is negative reasoning regarding the respondent
also averred that when they performed the leaving the matrimonial home and failed to
to
naming ceremony of baby girl, she returned appreciate that appellant has made efforts
bring her back. It is further contended that
back to the matrimonial home. However, the
the respondent in her cross-examination
appellant and his parents refused to take the
respondent and her child back to the matri (RW.1)has admitted that there was a maid
monial home, therefore, the respondent, servant who used to attend all household work.
started living with her parents. It is pleaded It is further admitted that it is the mother who
that the appellant and his parents have caused has demanded the dowry, however, in the
physical and mental cruelty and they have re statement of objectionsa contradictory stand
fused to take the respondent to matrimonial is taken that the appellant has demanded the
home without any reason. dowry, hence she has left the matrimonia!
6. The Family Court has recorded the evi home. It is further submitted that respondent.
while cross-examining the PW-1, has sug
dence. The appellant examined himself as gested that his mother had command over
PW.l and another witness as PW.2 and pro the family and she has assaulted his father.
duced Exs.Pl to P9. The respondent exam
ined herself as RW.1 and produced Ex.R1. and his sister got him admitted to the Hospi
The FamilyCourt based on the evidence ad tal at Indiranagar to take treatment. Such a
duced by the parties vide judgment dated suggestion by the respondent to the appellant
20.01.2012 dismissed the petition filed by the amounts to mental cruelty and the said sug
appellant. In the aforesaid factual matrix the gestion is made without substantiating with
corroborative evidence.
present appeal has been filed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant sub 9. He further submitsthat the appellant has
sent legal notice at Ex.P.3requesting the re
mits that the parties neither dispute the rela spondent to join the matrimonial home, how
tionship nor the birth of the female child. It is
submitted that the couple lived happily for ever the respondent has sent reply notice at
sometime and thereafter, the respondent wife Ex.P5 making reckless allegation that the
had started showing hostile attitude towards appellant's parents used to harass the respon
the appellant and family members. It is fur dent by notgiving food and did not allow her
ther submitted that respondent was adamant, to take bath saying that water will be wasted.
He further submits that he has filed complaint
never performed the duties of a wife, she used
to humiliate and insult the appellant and his at Ex.P6 Sahayavani requesting them to re
family members in the presence of friends solve the dispute by conciliation, he further
submits that the appellant and his family
and relatives and on many occasions she had members have spent huge money and per
created ugly scenes, which has caused men
formed baby shower ceremony and contrary
tal cruelty. It is also submitted that respon to the same the respondent in her cross-ex
dent used to threaten the appellant of filing amination has made reckless allegation of
false cases and of committing suicide and on demand of dowry and cruelty by the hus
05.04.2007 abruptly she left matrimonial band, these admissions of respondent are
home, thereafter never came back. Hence the
appellant has sent legal notice and initiated amounting to mental cruelty.
the proceedings. 10. He relies on the following decisions by
8. It is contended that Family Court has contending that the averments made in the
statement of objections and evidence of the
erred in dismissing the petition without appre
ciating the evidence on record in its proper respondent
reputation
are in the nature of damaging the
of the appellant and his family mem
perspective. It is further contended that PW.1
and PW.2 have categoricallystated about the bers, which amounts to cruelty. He further
conduct of the respondent which demonstrate submits that the separation of the coupie is
 S23 Harsha Chandrappa v. Bhagya Kar 153
for sufficient length of time, it can be fairly averment of the respondent was to the effect
presumed that the marriage has been broken that the income of the appellant was also spent
down iTetrievably. for maintaining his family. The said grievance
a SAMAR GHOSH v.JAYA GHOSH(2007) of the respondent is absolutely unjustified. A
4 SCCS1l :(AIROnline 2007 SC 347) son maintaining his parents is absolutely nor
mal in Indian culture and ethos. There is no
"95.Once the parties have separated and
theseparation has continued for a sufficient other reason for which the respondent wanted
length of time and one of them has presented the appellant to be separated from the family
a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the
that the marriage has broken down. The court, appellant. Unfortunately, the High Court con
nodoubt, should seriously make an endeav sidered this tobe a justifiable reason.
our to rèconcile the parties; yet, if it is found 17. This Court, in Vijaykumar Ramchandra
that the breakdown is irreparable, then di Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate [Vijaykumar
vorce should not be withheld. The conse Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar
quences of preservation in lawof the unwork Bhate(2003) 6 SCC334 : (AIR 2003 SC
able märriage which has long ceased to be 2462)), has held as under: (SCCp. 239, para 7).
effective are bound to be a source of greater 7. The question that requires to be an
misery for the parties. swered first is as to whether the averments,
b. NARENDRA v. K. MEENA (2016) 9 accusations and character assassination of the
SCC455 : (AIR 2016 SC 4599) wife by the appellant husband in the written
12. The respondent wife wanted the appel- statement constitutes mental cruelty for sus
taining the claim for divorce under Section
0ant to get separated from his family. The evi
dence shows that the family was virtually 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The position of law in
this regard has come to be well settled and
maintained from the income of the appellant declared that levelling
disgusting
husbana. It is not a common practice or de of unchastity and indecent accusations
familiarity with a
sirable culture for aHindu son in India to get
person outside wedlock and allegations of ex
separated from the parents upon getting mar tra-marital relationship is a grave assault on
ried at the instance of the wife, especially when
the character, honour, reputation, status as well
the son is the only earning member in the fam as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of
iiy. A son, brought upand given education by
perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed
his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to in the context of an educated Indian wife and
take care and maintain the parents, when they iudged by
become old and when they have either no in Indian conditions and standards
would amount to worst form of insult and
come or have a meagre income. In India, gen
erally people do not subscribe to the western cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cni
thought, where, upon getting married or at elty in law, warranting the claim of the wife
taining majority, the son gets separated from being allowed. That such allegations made in
the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is the written statement or suggested in the
course of examination and by way of cross
expected to be with the family of the husband examination satisfy the requirement of law has
after the marriage. She becomes integral to
and forrhs part of the family of the husband also come to be firmly laid down by this Court.
and normally without any justifiable strong Ongoing through the relevant portions of such
reason, She wouldnever insist that her hus be allegations, we find that no exception could
taken to the findings recorded by the Fam
band should get separated from the family and ily Court as wellas the High Court
live only with her. [Vijaykumar
Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar
13. In the instant case, upon appreciation Bhate(2001) 2 DMC 64 (Bom) :(AIROnline
of the evidence, the trial court came to the 2000 BOM 22)].We find that they are of
conclusion that merely for monetary consid- such quality, magnitude and consequence as
erations, the respondent wife wanted to get to cause mental pain, agony and suffering
her husband separated from his family. The amounting to the reformulated concept of cru
 AIR
154 Kar Harsha Chandrappa v. Bhagya
band was cordial with her and other family
elty in matrimonial law causing profound and
lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel members were looking after her properly with
deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it love and affection, however, she states that
and harass
would be dangerous for her to live with a her mother-in-law used to ill-treat
husband who was taunting her like that and her for money. She also admits that baby
performed by the ap
rendered the maintenance of matrimonial shower ceremony was
home impossible." pellant and the appellant has allowed her to
Hence, he seeks to allowthe appeal. complete higher education and supported her.
15. She further admitted that her parents
11. Learmed counsel for the respondent has
have visited Bangalore, where the couple were
filed a memo seeking to retire from the above residing for more than 4 to 5 times during 13
case. None for the respondent. months stay, however in her reply to the no
12.We have heard learned counselfor the tice at Ex.PS. and statement of objections she
appellant and perused the material on record. has stated that she was harassed by the ap
In the light of the above settled preposition of are contradic
case on hand The Pellant. The said statements
law, now we consider the tory to each other.
relationship between the parties and birth of 16. The appellant has sent legal notice at
the child is not disputed. It is also not disputed Ex.P3 requesting the respondent torejoin the
that the appellant was working in a Private matrimonial home, he has made attempt to
Company in Bangalore and the couple had lived bring her back to the matrimonial
home by
appellant's
together in Bangalore along with the as PW.1 at
approaching the Sahayavani, the complainthas
parents. The appellant has deposed viz.. s. Ex.P6. Per contra, the respondent/wife
and examined one more witness not taken any steps to rejoin the matrimonial
Mahesh Kumar, who is the friend of the ap
home despite the best efforts of the appellant.
pellant in support of his case. Now we deal The respondent has made reckless allegations
with the allegations of cruelty with reference and contradictory assertion in the statement
to the evidence on record. of objections, reply notice and cross- exami
13. PW.1 deposed that the respondent/wife nation. This Court can fairly infer that the re
was hostile towards the appellant and his par spondent has left the matrimonial home with
ents she used to misbehave and pick up quar outany justifiable reason and despite efforts
rel causing embarrassment and humiliation in made by the appellant, she failed to rejoin him.
front of friends and family members on many The respondent has made serious allegations
occasions. He further deposed that she has in her cross-examination without substantiat
threatened the appellant of filing false com ing the same, which amounts to mental cru
plaint and threatened to commit suicide, she elty to the appellant.
was of adamant behavior and frequently used 17. These aspects have not been properly |
to visit her parents house at Mysore and fi appreciated by the Family Court, therefore.|
nally she left the matrimonial home on has resulted in giving erroneous findings. The
05.04.2007. The said allegations are denied by Family Court has failed to appreciate that the
the respondent in her statement of objections, respondent has left the matrimonial home for
however, the allegations of cruelty are consis a sufficient length of time and despite an at
tent from the beginning of the marriage till the tempt by the appellant to bring her back, she
respondent left the matrimonial home, hence, has not rejoined the matrimonial home. The
the allegation can be termed as cruelty. respondent in her statement of objections, re
14. The respondent in her cross-examina ply to the legal notice and in the cross-exami
tion has admitted th¡t all the necessary house nation has made reckless allegations, which
hold articles and facilities were available while are of such a nature that it damages the repu
she was staying with him which is sufficient tation of the appellant and his family mem
to lead normal life, she has also admitted there bers. The allegations made by the respondent
was sufficient water facility available in the are weighty, grave and unfounded, it can be
house, she has further admitted that her hus fairly inferred that the respondent has caused
 A23 Oriental Select Granites Pvt. Ltd Bangalore v. State of Karnataka Kar 155

he mental cruelty tothe appellant. The asser (Amendment) Rules, 2016, in the interest of
tions of the respondent are wholly unwarranted justice and equity;
and made with an intention to cause harm to or
Ithereputation of the appellant. 2) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
18. Having regard to the peculiar facts and directing the respondent Authorities torenew
circumstances of the case and the fact that OL
the quarrying lease of the petitioner bearing
No.288 over an extent of 34 guntas in
the respondent is living separately for more
than 14 years, we are of the opinion, that it is Sy. No.184 of Jothigondanapura, Chamaraja
a fit case to grant the decree of divorce. nagar Taluk, Chamarajanagar up to 2039 as
19, For the aforementioned reasons, the per Rule 6 of the Granite Conservation and
Development Rules, 1999, in the interest of
impugned judgment and decree is set aside and
marriage between the parties is dissolved by a justice andpetitioner
equity"
- Company has been op
decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as 2. The
stipulated under Section 13(1)(ia) ofthe Hindu erating the quarry from 1978 under three dif
Marriage Act, 1955. ferent quarrying lease to an extent of 34 guntas
In the result the appeal is allowed. in Sy.No. 184 of Jothigondanapura, Chamaraja
nagar Taluk, Mysuru District with a long term
Appealallowed. vision and strategy as well as with the objec
tive of conservation of minerals. The petitioner
AIR 2023 KARNATAKA 155 was granted a fresh lease deed on 16.10.1999,
for a period of ten years in respect of the
:AIROnline 2023 KAR 254 abovementioned lease area. Subsequently, the
PRASANNAB. VARALE, C.J. AND Granite Conservation and Development Rules,
ASHOKS. KINAGI, J. 1999 (for short the GCD Rules, 1999') came
into force and owing to the provisions there
Oriental Select Granites Pvt. Ltd Bangalore under, the said quarrying lease came to be eX
v. State of Karnataka and another. tended for a period of twenty years vide lease
Writ Petition No. 10123 of 2022,D/-3-3-2023. deed bearing No.288 dated 05.05.2008 w.e.f.
Mines and Minerals (Development and 16.10.1999 for a further period of twenty
Regulation) Act (67 of 1957), S.15 years. It is contended that the petitioner is eli
Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession gible foradeemed extension under Rule 8A(2)
(Amendment) Rules (2016), R.8A(2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession
Quarry lease - Extension - Earlier lease (Amendment) Rules, 2016 (for short the
granted was by way of renewal and it was KMMC Amended Rules') and subsequently,
not original lease Held, in view of Sub renewal under Rule 6 of the GCD Rules, 1999.
rule (2) of R.8A of 2016 Rules, automatic It is contended that the petitioner has a statu
extension provided therein would not apply tory right for adeemed extension of their lease
toa case where lease has been renewed prior for a periodof thirty years which is up to 2029
to coming into force of the Rules, (Para 10) and subsequently under the GCD Rules, 1999
Cases Referred : Chronological Paras the petitioner is eligible for renewal of their
AIR 2016 SC 1672 6 lease deed for a further period of twenty years
after the lapse of the original grant. The peti
ORDER-This writ petition is filed seek- tioner made several representations, the latest
ing for the following prayers: one being on 09.12.2021, to the respondent -
"1)Issue awrit of mandamus directing the Authorities requesting for renewal /extension
respondent Authorities to extend the quarry- of their quarrying lease and the quarrying lease
ing lease of the petitioner bearing QL.No.288 was not automatically renewed / extended by
?over an extent of 34 guntas in Sy.No. 184 of the Government. The petitioner aggrieved by
Jothigondanapura, Chamarajanagar Taluk, the inaction on the part of the respondent -
) Chamarajanagar up to 2029 as per Rule 8A(2) Authorities have not considered the several re
of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession quests of the petitioner and being denied his