Recently, it was discovered that one of the leading banks had placed advertisement to e-auction an apartment in Bangalore and the bidders thought that SINCE, IT IS A BANK ATTACHED PROPERTY AND THE TITLES WILL BE PERFECT, it is not so, the apartment was constructed on the BDA acquired land and the owners had misled and fabricated documents and sold the property to the developer, who in turn, obtained the clearances and built the apartment.  The notorious buyer of the property came to know about this and defaulted in the EMI payments.  The bank attached the property and e-auctioned it.  But, it was stopped.  Complaints lodged with the bank management and the BDA.

Another case.

In Bangalore`s high-end Koramangala, the BDA had acquired and compensation was paid but did not develop a portion of that land measuring around 10,000 square feet for a long time.  Some person created a fake revenue document and sold the property.  The buyer borrowed money from Axxx Bank, naturally he defaulted in the payment of EMI.  The bank attached the property and auctioned it.  A NRI participated in the auction, bought it and resold the same within few months.  Now, a palatial housing complex is sitting on it.

This is the latest

A man from Kerala who bought a property auctioned by the State Financial Corporation and found that it was occupied by a third party. His approached the High Court with a plea to get back the money he paid in the auction. But SFC pointed out that it had auctioned the property on an “As is where is” basis.

J.K, a resident of Calicut in Kerala, approached the High Court of Karnataka against the KSFC. He had bought a property from KSFC through e-auction in January 2012. He bid the highest amount of Rs 8,01,000. He deposited the amount with SFC and was issued a sale certificate.

J.K.s grievance before the HC was that though he was given a sale certificate by SFC, he was not put in physical possession of the property. The property was in possession of a tenant. The tenant had taken the property on rent from the previous owner from whom the SFC had taken over the property. Since he was not in a position to enjoy the property, J.K. wanted the court to cancel the sale certificate and order KSFC to refund his money with interest.

SFC submitted that the terms and conditions of the sale was under the SARFAESI Act. The condition that was displayed in the KSFC website pointed out “that the sale was on ‘as is where is’ basis.” J.K  had paid the earnest money deposit and the communication in that regard also indicated that the possession of the property is on ‘as is where is’ basis after the receipt of the entire amount. J.K had deposited the balance amount after which he was given the sale certificate.

The HC in its judgement noted that there was clear understanding that the property was being sold on ‘as is where is’ basis. This fact was also made known to J.K, after the bid when he was asked to deposit the balance amount. He also had the benefit of inspecting the property before confirming the sale. Therefore it was difficult for the court to accept his contentions. An earlier HC judgment had also upheld the ‘as is where is’ clause in property sales. Thus rejecting his contentions, the HC ordered, “Therefore, if these aspects are kept in view, when the sale has been confirmed and the sale certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner, this court would not be justified in setting aside such sale certificate and directing repayment of the amount.” The court noted that J.K would have to initiate proceedings against the tenant to take over possession and SFC was directed to provide him “all assistance” in this regard





NARENDRA                            … APPELLANT



             J U D G M E N T


  1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant husband, whose decree for divorce passed by the trial  Court  has  been  set  aside  by  the  impugned judgment dated 8th March, 2006 passed by the  High  Court  of  Karnataka  at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.171 of 2002 (FC).

  1. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in  a  nutshell,  are  as under :

The Respondent wife filed Miscellaneous  First  Appeal  under  Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,  1955  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the Act”) before the High Court as she was aggrieved by the judgment and  decree dated 17th November, 2001, passed by  the  Principal  Judge,  Family  Court, Bangalore in M.C. No.603 of 1995 under Section 13(1)(ia) of  the  Act  filed by the Appellant husband seeking divorce.


  1. The Appellant  husband  had  married  the  Respondent  wife  on  26th February, 1992.  Out of the wedlock, a female child named Ranjitha was  born on 13th November, 1993.  The case of the Appellant was that  the  Respondent did not live  happily  with  the  Appellant  even  for  a  month  after  the marriage.   The  reason  for  filing  the  divorce  petition  was  that  the Respondent wife had become cruel because of  her  highly  suspicious  nature and she used to level absolutely frivolous but serious  allegations  against him regarding his character and more particularly  about  his  extra-marital relationship.  Behaviour of the Respondent wife made life of  the  Appellant husband miserable and it became impossible for the Appellant  to  stay  with the Respondent  for  the  aforestated  reasons.   Moreover,  the  Respondent wanted the Appellant to leave his parents and other family  members  and  to get separated from them so that the Respondent can live  independently;  and in that event it would become more torturous for the Appellant to stay  only with the Respondent wife with  her  such  nature  and  behaviour.  The  main ground was cruelty, as serious allegations were  levelled  about  the  moral character of the Appellant to the  effect  that  he  was  having  an  extra- marital affair with a maid, named Kamla.  Another important  allegation  was that the Respondent would very often threaten the Appellant that  she  would commit suicide.  In fact, on 2th July, 1995, she picked up  a  quarrel  with the Appellant, went to the bathroom, locked the door from inside and  poured kerosene on her body and attempted to commit suicide.  On getting  smell  of kerosene coming from the bathroom, the  Appellant,  his  elder  brother  and some of the neighbours broke open the door of  the  bathroom  and  prevented the Respondent wife from committing suicide.   The  aforestated  facts  were found to be  sufficient  by  the  learned  Family  Court  for  granting  the Appellant a decree of divorce dated 17th November, 2001,  after  considering the evidence adduced by both the parties.

  1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and  decree  of  divorce  dated  17t November, 2001, the Respondent wife had  filed  Miscellaneous  First  Appeal No.171 of 2002 (FC), which has been allowed by the High Court on 8th  March, 2006, whereby the decree of divorce dated 17th November, 2001 has  been  set aside.  Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High  Court, the Appellant has filed this appeal.

  1. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent was not present when the appeal was called out for hearing.  The matter was  kept  back  but  for the whole day, the learned counsel for the Respondent did not appear.   Even on an earlier occasion on 31st March, 2016, when the appeal was called  out, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent wife was  not  present  and therefore, the Court  had  heard  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the Appellant.


  1. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant  submitted  that  the High Court had committed a grave error in  the  process  of  re-appreciating the evidence and by setting aside the decree of divorce  granted  in  favour of the Appellant.  He submitted that there was no  reason  to  believe  that there was no cruelty on the part of the  Respondent  wife.   He  highlighted the observations made by the Family Court and took us through the  evidence, which was recorded before the Family Court.  He drew our  attention  to  the depositions made by independent witnesses, neighbours of the Appellant,  who had rescued the Respondent wife from committing  suicide  by  breaking  open the door of the bathroom when the Respondent was on the verge of  committing suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and by lighting a match  stick.   Our attention was also drawn to  the  fact  that  serious  allegations  levelled against the character of the  Appellant  in  relation  to  an  extra-marital affair with a maid were absolutely baseless as no maid named Kamla had  ever worked in the  house  of  the  Appellant.   It  was  also  stated  that  the Respondent wife was insisting  the  Appellant  to  get  separated  from  his family members and on 12th July, 1995  i.e.  the  date  of  the  attempt  to commit  suicide,  the  Respondent  wife  deserted  the  Appellant   husband.  According to the learned counsel, the facts recorded by the  learned  Family Court after appreciating the evidence  were  sufficient  to  show  that  the Appellant was entitled to a decree of  divorce  as  per  the  provisions  of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.


  1. We have carefully gone through the evidence adduced  by  the  parties before the trial Court and we tried to find out  as  to  why  the  appellate Court had taken a different view than the one  taken  by  the  Family  Court i.e. the trial Court.


  1. The High Court came to the conclusion that there was no cruelty meted out to the Appellant, which would enable him to get a decree of divorce,  as per the  provisions  of  the  Act.   The  allegations  with  regard  to  the character of the Appellant and the extra-marital affair  with  a  maid  were taken very seriously by the Family Court, but the High Court  did  not  give much importance to the false allegations made.  The constant  persuasion  by the Respondent  for  getting  separated  from  the  family  members  of  the Appellant and constraining the Appellant to live separately  and  only  with her was also not considered to be of any importance by the High  Court.   No importance was given to the incident with regard to  an  attempt  to  commit suicide made by the Respondent wife.  On the contrary, it appears  that  the High Court found some justification in the request made  by  the  Respondent to live separately from the family of the Appellant husband.   According  to the High Court, the trial Court did not appreciate  the  evidence  properly.  For the aforestated reasons, the High Court reversed  the  findings  arrived at by the learned Family Court and set aside the decree of divorce.


  1. We do not agree with the manner in  which  the  High  Court  has  re appreciated the evidence and has come to a different conclusion.


  1. With regard to the allegations of cruelty levelled by the  Appellant we are in agreement with the findings of the trial  Court.   First  of  all, let us look at the incident with regard to an attempt to commit  suicide  by the Respondent.   Upon  perusal  of  the  evidence  of  the  witnesses,  the findings arrived at by the trial Court to the  effect  that  the  Respondent wife had locked herself in the bathroom and had poured kerosene  on  herself so  as  to  commit  suicide,  are  not  in  dispute.   Fortunately  for  the Appellant, because of the noise and disturbance, even the neighbours of  the Appellant rushed to help and the door of the bathroom was  broken  open  and the Respondent was saved.  Had she been successful in her attempt to  commit suicide, then one can  foresee  the  consequences  and  the  plight  of  the Appellant because in that  event  the  Appellant  would  have  been  put  to immense difficulties because of the legal provisions.  We  feel  that  there was no fault on the part of the Appellant nor was there any reason  for  the Respondent wife to make an attempt to  commit  suicide.   No  husband  would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by  his  wife  and  if  the wife succeeds in committing  suicide,  then  one  can  imagine  how  a  poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would  virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his  entire  life.   The mere idea with regard to facing  legal  consequences  would  put  a  husband under tremendous stress.  The thought itself is distressing.  Such a  mental cruelty could not have  been  taken  lightly  by  the  High  Court.  In  our opinion, only this one event was sufficient for  the  Appellant  husband  to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.  It  is  needless  to  add that such threats  or  acts  constitute  cruelty.   Our  aforesaid  view  is fortified by a decision of this Court in  the  case  of  Pankaj  Mahajan  v. Dimple @ Kajal (2011) 12 SCC  1,  wherein  it  has  been  held  that  giving repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty.


  1. The Respondent wife wanted the Appellant to get  separated  from  hi family.  The evidence shows that the family was  virtually  maintained  from the income of the  Appellant  husband.  It  is  not  a  common  practice  or desirable culture for a Hindu  son  in  India  to  get  separated  from  the parents upon getting married at the instance of the  wife,  especially  when the son is the only earning member in the family.  A  son,  brought  up  and given education by his parents, has a moral and  legal  obligation  to  take care and maintain the parents, when they  become  old  and  when  they  have either no income or have a meagre income.  In  India,  generally  people  do not subscribe to  the  western  thought,  where,  upon  getting  married  or attaining majority, the son gets  separated  from  the  family.   In  normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be  with  the  family  of  the  husband after the marriage.  She becomes integral to and forms part  of  the  family of the husband and normally  without  any  justifiable  strong  reason,  she would never insist that her husband should get  separated  from  the  family and live only with her.  In the  instant  case,  upon  appreciation  of  the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that  merely  for  monetary considerations, the Respondent wife wanted  to  get  her  husband  separated from his family.  The averment of the Respondent was to the effect that  the income of the Appellant was also spent  for  maintaining  his  family.   The said  grievance  of  the  Respondent  is  absolutely  unjustified.   A   son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in Indian  culture  and  ethos. There is no other reason for which the Respondent wanted  the  Appellant  to be separated from the family – the sole reason was to enjoy  the  income  of the Appellant.  Unfortunately, the  High  Court  considered  this  to  be  a justifiable reason. In the opinion  of  the  High  Court,  the  wife  had  a legitimate expectation to see that the income of her  husband  is  used  for her and not for the family members of the Respondent  husband.   We  do  not see any reason to justify the said  view  of  the  High  Court.   As  stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a pious  obligation  of  the  son  to maintain the parents.  If a wife  makes  an  attempt  to  deviate  from  the normal practice and normal  custom  of  the  society,  she  must  have  some justifiable  reason  for  that  and  in  this  case,  we  do  not  find  any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of  the  Respondent  wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and  no  son  would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who  are also dependent upon his income.  The persistent  effort  of  the  Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from  the  family  would  be torturous for the husband and in our opinion,  the  trial  Court  was  right  when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an  act  of  ‘cruelty’.


  1. With regard to the allegations about  an  extra-marital  affair  with maid named Kamla, the re-appreciation of the  evidence  by  the  High  Court does not appear to be correct.  There is sufficient evidence to  the  effect  that there was  no  maid  named  Kamla  working  at  the  residence  of  the Appellant.  Some averment with regard to some relative has been relied  upon by the High Court to come to a conclusion that there was a lady named  Kamla but the High Court has  ignored  the  fact  that  the  Respondent  wife  had levelled  allegations  with  regard  to  an  extra-marital  affair  of   the Appellant with the maid and not with someone else.  Even if there  was  some relative named Kamla,  who  might  have  visited  the  Appellant,  there  is nothing to substantiate the allegations  levelled  by  the  Respondent  with regard to an extra-marital affair.  True, it is very difficult to  establish such allegations but at the same time, it is equally true that to suffer  an allegation pertaining to one’s character of having an  extra-marital  affair is quite torturous for any person – be it a husband  or  a  wife.   We  have carefully gone through the evidence but  we  could  not  find  any  reliable evidence to show  that  the  Appellant  had  an  extra-marital  affair  with someone.  Except for the baseless and reckless  allegations,  there  is  not even the slightest evidence that would  suggest  that  there  was  something like an affair of the Appellant with the maid named by the  Respondent.   We consider levelling of  absolutely  false  allegations  and  that  too,  with regard to an extra-marital life to be quite serious and that can  surely  be a cause for metal cruelty.


  1. This Court, in the case  of  Vijaykumar  Ramchandra  Bhate  v.  Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, 2003 (6) SCC 334 has held as under:- “7.   The question that requires to be answered first is as to  whether  the averments, accusations and  character  assassination  of  the  wife  by  the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes  mental  cruelty  form sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of  the  Act.  The position of law in this regard has come to  be  well  settled  and  declared that  levelling  disgusting   accusations   of   unchastity   and   indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and  allegations  of  extramarital relationship is a  grave  assault  on  the  character,  honour,  reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of  perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of  an  educated  Indian  wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form  of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to  substantiate  cruelty  in  law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such  allegations  made in the written statement or suggested in the course of  examination  and  by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to  be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the  relevant  portions  of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to  the  findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We  find  that  they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence  as  to  cause  mental  pain, agony and suffering amounting to the  reformulated  concept  of  cruelty  in matrimonial law causing profound and  lasting  disruption  and  driving  the wife to  feel  deeply  hurt  and  reasonably  apprehend  that  it  would  be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that  and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.”


  1. Applying the said ratio to the facts of this case, we are inclined to hold that the unsubstantiated allegations levelled by  the  Respondent  wife and the threats and attempt to commit suicide  by  her  amounted  to  mental cruelty and therefore, the marriage deserves to be dissolved by a decree  of divorce on the ground stated in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.

  1. Taking an overall view  of  the  entire  evidence  and  the  judgment delivered by the trial Court, we firmly believe that there was  no  need  to take a different view than the one taken by the trial Court.  The  behaviour of the Respondent wife appears to be terrifying  and  horrible.   One  would find it difficult to live with such a person with tranquility and  peace  of mind.  Such torture would adversely affect the life of the husband.   It  is also not in dispute that the Respondent wife had left the matrimonial  house on 12th July, 1995 i.e. more than 20 years back.  Though not on record,  the learned counsel submitted that  till  today,  the  Respondent  wife  is  not staying with the Appellant.  The daughter of the  Appellant  and  Respondent has also grown up and according to the learned counsel, she  is  working  in an IT company.  We have  no  reason  to  disbelieve  the  aforestated  facts because with the passage of time, the daughter must have grown  up  and  the separation of the Appellant and the wife must have also  become  normal  for her and therefore, at this juncture it would not be  proper  to  bring  them together, especially when the Appellant husband was treated  so  cruelly  by the Respondent wife.

  1. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court.  The decree of divorce dated 17th November, 2001  passed  by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore  in  M.C.  No.603  of  1995  is hereby restored.

  1. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.






OCTOBER 06, 2016.