II Year B.A./B.B.A., LL.

B – Semester-III

1st -Internal Assessment

Subject: Family Law

Topic: Case Analysis

NAME: RAJRI PATEL

DIVISION: C
PRN: 21010126274
COURSE: BBA LL.B. (H)
BATCH: 2021-2026
 Renuka v Sangappa
FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant-respondent said they had been happily married for 27 years and had lived
together for six of those years in Rabakavi village. Their child was Vithal. According to the
respondent, the appellant hails from a wealthy family and leads a unique life. Without
notifying them, she regularly visited her parents. Elders told the appellant about all of these
issues, but she made no changes. The respondent was forced to file a petition under Section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act because the appellant refused to wed him and unjustifiably resided
at her mother's house. During the course of the petition, the appellant suggested joining the
defendant. The respondent filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act based
on this promise. When the marriage failed, the claimant didn't change and didn't reunite with
the respondent, so she returned to live with her parents. She asked her husband for a
maintenance payment. In this situation, the respondent filed petition under section 13 petition
to dissolve his Hindu marriage from 2009. In 2014, the family court approved his divorce
over his wife's opposition. Later, the woman filed an appeal with the High Court.

ISSUES RAISED

 Does the petitioner have evidence that the respondent has been cruel to them?
 Whether the petitioner can demonstrate that the respondent abandoned him for more
than two years before filing the petition?

JUDGEMENT

The court addressed the first and second concerns after hearing from both the party’s counsel.
The appellant also requested division and support, and the court noticed she hadn't remarried.
The respondent's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was rejected owing to
the appellant's failure to join the defendant. The appellant didn't give any documents. She had
plenty of chances to join the defendant in the 2010 case. It was tough and desolate for her to
skip seeing her parents for 15 years. Regarding the deserting spouse, the crime of desertion
requires:
 evidence of separation and
 the purpose to end cohabitation intentionally.
By taking into consideration the two essentials, the appellant-behaviour wife demonstrates
unequivocally that she has no wish to remain with the respondent up to the date of petition
filing, which is beyond the required two-year timeframe. In addition, she has exhibited little
interest. The deserting spouse ends cohabitation and renounces his or her marital obligations
and responsibilities. The court correctly construed the well-established practise of reading
animus deserendi (the intent to discontinue cohabitation) and separation together.
According to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in this case, which affirmed the divorce
decision granted by the lower court, living away from your spouse is cruel and grounds for
divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. By elaborating on the idea of cruelty, it
also offered a new viewpoint and interpretation. Only seldom has living away from a spouse
been described as harsh in the past.
 ANALYSIS

KHBFEWFN

CONCLUSION

UHNUJ