A woman was rapped for fraud and fined for misleading the Karnataka High Court and stopping her former husband’s second marriage.
Sunitha and Ananth Kumar (names changed) were married on March 9, 2012 at Kundapura in coastal Karnataka. She refused to consummate the marriage and went back to her parents’ house in Shimoga district.When efforts to bring her back failed, Kumar filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty.
Sunitha told a court in Puttur she had agreed to marry Kumar only because of her parents’ pressure. She declared she was not interested in the marriage and intended to continue her studies.
Since she did not contest the case, the trial court granted divorce on September 5, 2013.
On January 22, 2014, she challenged the decision in the High Court, alleging her husband had filed a divorce case without her knowledge.
She claimed the notice had been served on some other woman, and therefore she had not been able to contest the case. She produced an invitation card and sought a stay on his second wedding, slated for January 23. Based on her submission, the High Court passed an interim order and faxed it to the Sagar police to ensure that Kumar did not marry a second time.
After his wedding was disrupted, Kumar submitted documents to the High Court to show that Sunitha had appeared in person at a court in Sagar and even sought Rs 5,000 as alimony.
A division bench comprising Justice K L Manjunath and Justice Ravi Malimath came to know Sunitha had made an incorrect submission. It sympathised with Kumar’s plight.
The bench also observed that denying sex to the husband amounted to mental cruelty. “Believing the affidavit filed by Sunitha, we even went to an extent of directing the police to see that the (second) marriage is cancelled,” the order said.
Not only Kumar and his family, but also his bride and her family suffered mental torture as their reputation was tarnished. Sunitha is guilty of suppressing facts and abusing the process of law, the judges said. The judges said Kumar was entitled to adequate compensation, but since the marriage was dissolved and any penalty would burden Sunitha’s parents, they would only award a nominal sum of Rs 10,000 to him.
The court dismissed Sunitha’s petition and upheld the lower court’s decision to grant divorce.