K'taka court grants divorce to man on grounds of cruelty & bigamy by wife

Mangaluru, May 14 (IANS) A Karnataka court has granted divorce to a man on grounds of cruelty and bigamy by his wife.

The order in this regard has been passed by Lakshminarayana Bhat K., Principal judge at a Mangaluru family court.

The court while giving the order noted that, "As per the forgoing findings, the petitioner (husband) has proved he has been subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondent on account of her second marriage during the subsistence of valid first marriage."

"The respondent (wife) is not entitled for permanent alimony or maintenance. The petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce," the court said.

Uday Nayak, a resident of Mundabi house in Mangaluru district, has submitted the petition in this regard seeking divorce from his wife under the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Uday Nayak, the petitioner in the case turned a detective to expose his wife.

Not only did he find about illegal marriage of his wife while she was still married to him, he also stage managed a job interview to take out all details of her remarriage.

The wife demanded Rs 3 crore from the petitioner.

The court did not grant her any alimony but instead asked both the parties to return each other's gold and also asked the wife to pay Rs 30,000 to the husband as his expenses.

Relieved after the order, Uday Nayak, the husband, said: "I and family have suffered immensely in the last few years. Though my ex-wife earned well, she asked hefty maintenance from me and a huge alimony. I didn't lose hope and fought back and presented proofs of all her lies in the court. I am thankful to the judge for passing this judgment. Bigamy is a crime. She should be arrested for it."

The couple had married on December 31, 2018, as per customs. After marriage the couple started residing in Bengaluru in a rented house.

The wife worked with a reputed IT company in Mumbai and after marriage she took transfer to Bengaluru.

The petitioner has alleged that his wife had relationship with a man prior to marriage and continued her relationship after marriage.

It is also alleged that the wife suffered from severe depression.

She maintained that her career was important for abortion causing mental agony to the petitioner and his parents.

As the relationship grew bitter, the wife lodged a police complaint alleging domestic violence, a week prior to his sister's wedding.

The petitioner obtained bail.

The petitioner further charged that his wife has remarried on March 13, 2023, at Maharashtra and after marriage she has applied for change of name and it was published in Maharashtra Shasan Rajpatra.

The petitioner told the court that he has stage managed a zoom meeting interview of the respondent and during conference the respondent has admitted her second marriage.

The wife filed a counter statement denying all other allegations made by the husband against her in the petition.

She charged that the petitioner has forced her judgement to abort the child by putting pressure and said that he is not settled in life.

She further claimed that the petitioner has necked out her from the matrimonial house.

The wife told court that her husband forced her to engage in unnatural physical activities also insisting her to have physical relationship with his friends.

However, the court noted that the wife was not discharging her marital obligations and against his wish she has undergone abortion.

She was always busy in social media platforms.

She has lodged a false police report against the petitioner and his family members.

The court in its judgment said, "In the case on hand during cross-examination the respondent has failed to make out the petitioner was insisting her to have unnatural physical activities or insisted her to maintain physical relationship with his friends. Therefore, the facts and other circumstances of the case shows the respondent has made false allegations against the petitioner."

The respondent has entered second marriage during the subsistence of the valid marriage with the petitioner, she is not entitled for permanent alimony.

The court noted that the respondent (wife) from the oral evidence and documentary has failed to prove after solemnisation of the marriage that the petitioner has subjected her to undergo physical and mental cruelty and harassment.

The judgement of the case was made on April 23 and the certified copies of the judgement have been obtained on Tuesday.

Senior counsel Vishal Shetty represented the petitioner.

--IANS

mka/khz