K S SHANKAR Vs. K JYOTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed by the husband impugning the common judgment and decree dated 19.02.2011 in matrimonial cases in M.C.No.5/2008 and M.C.No.2/2009 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary (for short, 'the family 'Court'). The matrimonial case in M.C.No.5/2008 is filed by the husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 10 of the (Indian) Divorce Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Divorce Act') and the matrimonial case in M.C.No.2/2009 is filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Special Marriage Act'). These cases have been clubbed, and decided by the common judgment and decree dated 19.2.2011. The husband's petition for divorce in M.C.No.5/2008 is dismissed, and the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.2/2009 is allowed. As such, these appeals by the husband.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the couple's marriage is solemnised on 13.11.2005 according to the Christian rites and customs. The couple have a daughter, Miss.Krupa born on 30.10.2006. The husband is working as a police constable, and just prior to the wedding, he was working at Hospet, but after the marriage, he started working at Siruguppa. The wife is a government teacher, and even as of the date of the marriage, she was working in a Government School at Halekote Village of Siruguppa taluk. The couple are estranged, and have been living separately ever since the date of the petition by the husband for divorce on 20.11.2008. The husband is staying in a lodge, and the wife is residing in the quarters allotted to the husband.

(3.) The husband's case is that he is subjected to cruelty by the wife. He reasonably apprehends that it would be harmful and injurious for him to live with respondent, and therefore, he is entitled for divorce. The wife was abusive and he had to suffer severe mental trauma because of the wife's conduct. The wife was in the family way within 4-5 months of the marriage, but she was not interested in continuing the pregnancy. Therefore, she called on a doctor to undergo medical intervention for abortion. When he and his parents tried to counsel the wife, she would retort that she was not a childbearing machine. However, the wife continued the pregnancy after much persuasion. The child was born in the month of October 2006 after a cesarean procedure. The wife stayed with her parents for confinement, but she returned to the matrimonial home with the child after the customary period.