PASSED IN M.C.NO.11/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUNUGUND, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, P.B.BAJANTHRI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT In this appeal, the appellant has questioned the validity of the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hungund, in M.C.No.11/2012.
2. The appellant and the respondent were married about 17 years back as on the date of presentation of M.C.No.11/2012. They were living together for about ten years. Respondent gave birth to three children namely Ashwini, Pradeep and Praveen. After their marriage, they stayed together in Maharashtra and Bengaluru for their livelihood. The respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act and sought for divorce on the allegations that appellant had thrown the respondent from the marital home while abusing both physically and mentally and also asking her to bring two tolas of gold. The appellant is in the habit of consuming alcohol and abusing the respondent and to get property from her mothers place. The appellant was suspecting respondent. The appellant has also filed O.S.No.50/2010 relating to property. The appellant has not disputed relating to marriage, having three children and they had gone to Maharashtra and Bengaluru for their livelihood whereas he has denied the allegations relating to bringing two tolas of gold as dowry and in this regard, he has abused the respondent and he was not suspecting her. It was further contended that he had spent a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards her medical expenses and she had left the marital home on the score that appellants old aged mother was to be looked after for which she has refused and left the home while taking a sum of Rs.50,000/-, two tolas of gold and taking her elder daughter to Ilkal and arranged for a rented house.
3. In this regard, the trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Jzgzg vU iP A Pngv JAz Cfzg vrzAi?
2. Cfzg ZzU C?
3. Aii Dz?
4. Examined PW.1-respondent and marked two documents as Ex.Ps.1 and 2. RW.1-appellant and RW.2 one Hanumanth Totappa Kuri. No documents have been produced on behalf of the appellant. The trial Court after due examination of the evidence both oral and documentary proceeded to grant divorce to the respondent with costs. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 13.11.2014 in M.C.No.11/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hunugund, appellant has presented this appeal on 16.02.2015.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that having regard to the conduct of the respondent that she has deserted not only appellant so also two children initially, later even daughter has been handed over to the appellant. Thus, children are residing with appellant. Despite advise of elderly person and well-wishers, she has not heeded to their advice to return to the marital home and instead of leading life sought for divorce. The trial Court should have appreciated the fact that parties have three children and necessary endeavor should have been made to reconcile the parties. Thus, the trial Court has committed grave error in allowing the petition under Section
13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act.
6. Per Contra learned counsel for the respondent submitted that they have filed a memo stating that respondent has already remarried on 18.12.2014. To that effect, the registration certificate issued by the Marriage Registration Officer, Bagalkot dated 13.01.2015 is placed on record.
7. In view of the later development, the question of reconsidering petition under sub section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act filed on behalf of the respondent, which was allowed in favour of respondent-Sangamma cannot be interfered.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Having regard to the date and events that respondent has presented, M.C.No.11/2012 was filed under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act and was allowed on 13.11.2014 in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner has remarried Shri. Sangappa Bandiwaddar on 18.12.2014, whereas the present petition was presented on 16.02.2015. The respondent has committed blunder by remarrying on 18.12.2014 and getting it registered during the appeal period. It is not proper to remarry during the appeal period which is nothing but continuation of the original proceedings in M.C.No.11/2012.
10. In view of the fact that appellant and the respondent were married about 17 years ago from the date of presentation of M.C.No.11/2012 and the fact that they gave birth to three kids namely Ashwini, Pradeep, Praveen respectively and the respondent has remarried, the question of interference with the Order dated 13.11.2014 passed in M.C.No.11/2012 may not be proper so as to unsettle the remarriage of the respondent with Sri. Sangappa Bandiwaddar, dated 18.12.2014. The respondent has committed grave error in remarrying during the appeal period. Therefore, in the interest of her children from the appellant, respondent-Sangamma is hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of her daughter Kumari Ashwini, in the nationalized Bank and the daughter is permitted to withdraw earned interest from time to time and also to encash the fixed deposit at the time of her marriage or attaining the age of marriage. Such fixed deposit arrangement be made within a period of six months, failing which this appeal may be listed before the Court for non- compliance.
11. In view of the above narrated facts and circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Jm-paragraphs 1 and 2 Vb/- from paragraph 2 till end