Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

High Court Grants Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty as Unchallenged Evidence Stands Admitted

06 September 2024 5:27 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru granted a decree of divorce to Smt Kanakashree R, the appellant, on the grounds of cruelty as the evidence presented by her remained unchallenged and was deemed admitted by the court. The judgment, delivered by The Hon’ble Mr Justice Alok Aradhe and The Hon’ble Mr Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde on June 26, 2023, sets a precedent for cases where unchallenged evidence establishes a strong case for dissolution of marriage due to cruelty.

The appeal (Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4378 of 2017 (FC)) was filed by Smt Kanakashree R against the dismissal of her petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court had rejected the petition, but the appellant appealed against this decision, citing unchallenged evidence.

According to the appellant, the couple’s marriage was solemnized on June 8, 2009, in Mysuru. However, their relationship deteriorated within two months, with constant quarrels and abuse by the husband, who was under the influence of alcohol. The appellant alleged that she was not treated with respect, and the husband’s unadjustable nature made it impossible for them to continue their marital life. The appellant further contended that both parties were forced into the marriage against their wishes.

During the proceedings, the husband appeared before the court but did not file a statement of objections or challenge the evidence presented by the appellant. As a result, the wife’s evidence remained unchallenged, including documents marked as exhibits. Notably, the appellant’s birth date, December 10, 1994, as indicated in her SSLC marks card (Ex.P5), confirmed that she was only 15 years old at the time of marriage.

The High Court, citing established legal principles, emphasized the significance of cross-examination and the effect of non-cross-examination. It held that when a witness’s statement remains unchallenged due to the lack of cross-examination, the statement is deemed admitted. In this case, since the husband did not challenge the petition or cross-examine the appellant, the court considered the evidence to be admitted and relevant.

Considering the unchallenged evidence and the absence of opposition during the appeal hearing, the High Court concluded that the wife had successfully established her plea of cruelty, thus entitling her to a decree of dissolution of marriage. The court set aside the judgment and decree of the Family Court and allowed the petition seeking dissolution of marriage.

This judgment highlights the importance of properly challenging evidence and engaging in cross-examination during legal proceedings. The court’s ruling recognizes that unchallenged evidence can play a decisive role in determining the outcome of a case, particularly when it establishes grounds for dissolution of marriage due to cruelty.

This judgment is in line with previous legal precedents, such as the case of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) through Lrs. Vs. Muddasani Sarojana (2016) 12 SCC 288 and Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and Another (1999) 3 SCC 573, which underscore the significance of cross-examination and the admission of unchallenged evidence.

The judgment serves as a reminder to legal practitioners and parties involved in family law cases to carefully consider the implications of unchallenged evidence, as it can heavily influence the outcome of a dispute.

Date of Decision: June 26, 2023.

SMT KANAKASHREE vs DEVARAJ @ PAPANNA

Latest Legal News