Karnataka High Court Smt Dr Geetha Chandrashekar vs Sri K Chandrashekar on 1 September, 2022 M.F.A. NO.2282/2014 DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2282/2014 (MC) BETWEEN: SMT. DR. GEETHA CHANDRASHEKAR W/O K.CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PATHOLOGIST N.M.MEDICAL CENTRE CORPORATE TOWER DIAMOND DISTRICT HAL AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE PRESENTLY R/AT NO.B11 JAGANNATH, RIFLE RANGE GHATKOPAR (WEST) MUMBAI. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI S.G.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND : SRI K.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SRI K. KODANDAPANI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.D307, ADMIRALITY SQUARE, NO.79, 6TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS M.F.A. NO.2282/2014 2 HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE 560 038. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KESHAV M. DATAR AND SRI.SRINANDAN KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATES) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, R/W SEC. 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2014 PASSED IN M.C.NO.2876/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S 13(1) iia) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, FOR DIVORCE AND DISMISSING THE COUNTER CLAIM OF RESPONDENT THEREIN FILED U/S 23(A) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, S.RACHAIAH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the wife being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014 in M.C No.2876/2008 on the file of learned IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru. By the impugned judgment and decree the Trial Court has allowed the petition of the respondent for divorce on the ground of cruelty and dismissed the counter claim filed by the M.F.A. NO.2282/2014 3 appellant under Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'Act'). 2. The appellant was the respondent and the respondent was the petitioner before the Trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth as per their ranks before the Trial Court. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief as follows: The petitioner married the respondent on 06.05.2004 at Mumbai. Thereafter both started to reside at Bengaluru. The respondent is a Doctor and the petitioner is a Software Engineer. Before the marriage the respondent had undergone major surgery for fibroid, consequently, she lost her capacity to bear children. Suppressing that fact she married the petitioner. On learning about that, when the petitioner tried to probe that she turned hostile and started showing her true colours. The respondent is highly egoistic with cynical mindset and she did not cherish value of relationship. She used to remove her mangalya sutra and enter the pooja room M.F.A. NO.2282/2014 4 during menstrual periods. She used to hurt the feeling of the petitioner and his parents and subjected them to cruelty. The respondent has deserted the petitioner in the month of September 2006 stating that she is not interested in marital life. The petitioner has suffered both mentally and physically at the hands of the respondent. The respondent without any valid reason deserted him and started residing in Bombay. Therefore he is entitled to decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 4. The respondent contested the petition by filing statement of objections along with her counter claim under section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. She denied the allegations of her inability to bear a child or suppression of any material fact or any acts of cruelty or desertion. She claimed that the petitioner himself started distancing from her and ultimately while he leaving to USA tricked her to move from their flat to a paying guest accommodation. She claimed that she is always ready to lead conjugal life with M.F.A. NO.2282/2014 5 him. Thus she sought dismissal of the petition and decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The responde