Allowed

Mithun M S v. Smt Bhavana G

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2022MFA/3552/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a miscellaneous first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act. The court set aside the dismissal of a divorce petition filed on the ground of desertion, relying on a compromise petition filed by both parties under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, and granted a decree of divorce.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order sets aside; appeal allowed; marriage dissolved by decree of divorce in terms of compromise petition.

Mithun M S Vs Smt Bhavana G — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3552/2021 (FC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MITHUN M S S/O. SHIVAKUMAR M.R., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 625, 6^TH CROSS, GROUND FLOOR, KAVERIPURA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, NARAYANA BUILDING, BENGALURU NORTH, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 079. ... APPELLANT (BY SRIYUTHS B.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT AND S.N.BHAT, ADVOCATES.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT BHAVANA G W/O. MITHUN. M. S., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT SIDDESHWARASWAMY KRUPA, 4^TH MAIN, 4^TH B CROSS, MARUTHI NAGARA, TUMAKURU-572 101. ... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI MUKESHA K.N, ADV.)

¶14

¶15

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.20.03.2020 PASSED IN MC NO.4270/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13(1)(i-b) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR “ADMISSION” THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Both the parties present memorandum of petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC is filed. Same reads as under:

¶19

“MEMORANDUM OF PETITION UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND SECTION 13-B OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT

¶20

The appellant and respondent submits as follows:

¶21

The appellant had filed the petition in M.C.No.4270/2018 before the 3^rd Addl. Prl. Family Judge at Bengaluru against the respondent seeking divorce of their marriage u/s 13(ib) of the Hindu Marriage act. The said petition was dismissed on 20.3.2020.

¶22

By the intervention of the relatives and friends both parties have decided to get their marriage dissolved as the marriage between appellant and respondent has irrevocably broken down and therefore they are filing this petition.

¶23

Both the appellant and respondent submits that the marriage solemnized on 4.6.2012 at Kolluru Mookambika Temple, Koluru, may

¶24

¶25

kindly be ordered to be dissolved and divorce may kindly be granted to the parties.

¶26

The respondent is B.E. graduate and working is Sri Guru Printers and drawing a sufficient salary and therefore she is not interested in getting any maintenance for now and also future. Therefore the appellant is not liable to make any permanent alimony to the respondent.

¶27

The parties are not having any issues in the marriage.

¶28

Wherefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the judgment passed by the learned 3^rd Addl. Prl. Family judge at Bengaluru dated 20.3.2020 in M.C.No.4270/2018 by granting a divorce to the parties and dissolved the marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent held on 4.6.2012 at Kolluru Mookambika Temple, Koluru, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

Sd/Sd/Appellant Respondent Sd/Sd/Advocate for Appellant Advocate for Respondent

¶30

Bengaluru Date: 22.8.2022.”

¶31

The appeal is by the husband, petitioner before

¶32

the Family Court. The Misc. Case No.4270/2018 was filed in the year 2018 and was preferred by the petitioner appellant

¶33

on the short ground of the respondent wife having deserted

¶34

¶35

him. The family Court after a trial has been pleased to conclude that the petitioner-husband has not been able to demonstrate the factum of desertion. In that view of the matter, the family Court was pleased to dismiss the petition. Aggrieved is before the Court.

¶36

The appellant and respondent are before the Court. On a query the respondent - wife would submit that they lived as husband and wife eight years ago and thereafter have been residing separately from the year 2014. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the marriage has been retrievably broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation. The respondent is before the Court and on a query submits that she expects no alimony and that she waives her rights for alimony and that she is gainfully employed.

¶37

The facts elicited from the parties clearly demonstrates a breakdown of the marriage, which in our considered opinion is irretrievable and the parties have categorically prayed the Court to dissolve the marriage. In

¶38

¶39

our opinion the parties who are still in the youth should be given an opportunity to lead their lives without the yoke of the earlier marriage. It would be in the interest of the parties if the parties are permitted to move their separate ways and make out their lives for themselves. No purpose would be served by rejecting the petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3. In that view of the matter, the compromise petition is taken on record. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise petition. The marriage of the appellant and respondent solemnized on 04.06.2012 at Kolluru Mukambika Temple, Kollur, is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce.

¶40

Office to draw up the decree accordingly.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

ykl CT-HR

Mithun M S v. Smt Bhavana G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithun M S v. Smt Bhavana G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. G.M. Pramod Vs Smt. Sandhya .B

Smt Vidyalakshmi Vs Sri.Mahadeva M

M/S Naris Realtors Company Vs Beml Employees House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd.

LIC of India Vs Kum Ponnaganti Sumedha Reddy

M/S Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited Vs Vishal Vivek Tiwari

Srinivasa T Vs the State of Karnataka