Dismissed

Padmashree v. Naveen Kumar

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2024MFA/102086/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Family Court's dismissal of a restitution of conjugal rights petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant filed a memo seeking withdrawal; the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and prayers for permanent alimony and return of ornaments were held not maintainable in this appeal.

What did the court decide?

None; appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue alimony and ornaments claims in appropriate proceedings.

Padmashree Vs Naveen Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:219-DB MFA No.102086 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102086 OF 2022 (FC)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

PADMASHREE W/O. NAVEEN KUMAR, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, #30, ADHYAPAK NAGAR, SIDDHESHWAR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD - 580031. (BY SRI. S.C. JAINAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally K MSOMASHEKAR signed by K MSOMASHEKARDate:2024.01.05 10:59:24 +0530

¶15

NAVEEN KUMAR S/O. BRAHMADEVAIAH N, AGE-46 YEARS, OCC. SOFTWARE ENGINEER, 571/1A, I CROSS, BANASHANKARI, III STAGE, III PHASE, III BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560085.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR B., PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.03.2022, PASSED IN MATRIMONIAL CASE NO.300/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC. 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:219-DB MFA No.102086 of 2022

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Learned counsel, Sri. S.C. Jainar for the appellant is present. Sri. Naveen Kumar B., the respondent party-inperson is also present.

¶24

The learned counsel for the appellant files a memo, dated 04.01.2024 for withdrawal of the appeal which reads as follows:

¶25

“Herein the above named appellant begs to submit as under,

¶26

The appellant submits that in view of decision taken by the appellant, the appellant is not pressing the above appeal. In view of the same, the appellant may kindly be permitted to withdraw the above said appeal. Further the appellant craves the leave of this Hon’ble Court to order for return of the gold and silver ornaments of the appellant which are in the custody of respondent and further order may kindly be passed for permanent alimony, since the trial court has not passed an order for permanent alimony in M.C. No.22/2017.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:219-DB MFA No.102086 of 2022

¶28

Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above said appeal as withdrawn. The appellant further pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant permanent alimony, gold and silver ornaments given at the time of marriage to the respondent.”

¶29

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 02.03.2022, passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, in M.C.No.300/2016 rejecting the appellant’s petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

¶30

As prayed in the memo, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, in an appeal filed against the judgment passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellant’s prayer for permanent alimony and for return of gold and silver ornaments cannot be considered. This Court could only examine as to whether Family Court was justified in dismissing the petition filed

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC-D:219-DB MFA No.102086 of 2022

¶33

under Section 9 of the 1955 Act and whether the appellant

¶34

was entitled for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶35

It is open for the appellant to workout her

¶36

remedy in an appropriate proceeding in respect of the said prayer.

¶37

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Padmashree v. Naveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmashree v. Naveen Kumar

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

Henry Darshi S/O Darshi Sangeetrao Vs Hepzaibah Henry Darshi Alias Hepziah Yamrthy

Malan W/O Yashwant Sayanekar Vs Parashuram S/O Narayan Nilajkar

Suhail S/O. Zaheerudun Adhoni, Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Shri. Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwar Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

The State Of Karnataka Vs Sri Neelakantha, So Basavaraj Kumbar

The State Of Karnataka Vs S B Biradar