Appeal by wife against an ex parte decree of divorce granted on the husband's cruelty petition. The court found she was in the matrimonial home when the petition was filed and her non-appearance was bona fide, set aside the decree and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with opportunity to both parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:19050-DB MFA No.2297/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2297/2020 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANU JAIN W/O SRI. DHARESHWAR G.M. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.TF-1, INCLOVER KRISH NO.40 (BBMP NO.13/40) HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR 4 BANGALORE 560 102.
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SMT. REVATHY ADINATH NARDE, ADV.,) AND:
SRI. DHARESHWAR G.M. S/O SRI. G.M. UDAYASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.404, SL GARDEN LIND ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE 560020.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N. KUMAR, ADV.,)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.02.08.2019 PASSED IN MC NO.6362/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13(1)(i-a) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and decree of divorce passed against her, the respondent in M.C.No.6362/2018 on the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, (for short, 'the trial Court'), has preferred this appeal.
residential apartment in Bengaluru, accordingly, both of them pooled the money and purchased residential apartment. It is also alleged that the petitioner and respondent jointly availed housing loan and they paid EMIs. Thereafter, they started residing in the said apartment along with their daughter.
home along with the daughter and started residing separately in the pretext that the petitioner advised her father not to lend money to her brother and he paid Rs.1.5 lakh to her brother and he has been incommunicado. It is further averred that in March 2016, the petitioner and respondent planned to go to Canada and accordingly they started to save money to repay the loan amount, however the respondent has spent huge amount on her clothing, when that was questioned, the respondent walked out from the matrimonial home and used to blackmail the petitioner. It is also alleged that during the stay at Canada, the friends of petitioner helped the respondent to take care of the daughter, even then, the behaviour of the respondent was rude. In October 2016, the respondent got her work permit and found a job, at that time the petitioner used to pick and drop the child from the day-care. In November 2016, the petitioner wished to get his parents on international trip and accordingly the parents joined them. At that time, the petitioner requested the respondent to lend money to facilitate the trip of his parents, for which she declined and fought with the petitioner for spending money on his parents. Similarly, in the month of November 2016, the petitioner intend to take entire family to the
restaurant, at that time, the respondent decided not to talk to them and skipped dinner, due to such conduct, the parents of the petitioner decided to return back to India. It is further averred that in March 2017, one day the respondent brain washed her daughter and made her to believe that the mother of the petitioner used to beat her terribly, therefore, she should never talk to her grandmother. The said words have been uttered by the petitioner's daughter to him, however, the daughter of the couple was very fond of her grandparents. When he confronted the respondent about such mind poisoning, she started threatening the petitioner that she would commit suicide. It is also averred that in June 2017, the petitioner discussed the divorce option with the respondent and suggested for counseling, for which the respondent refused. On 23rd November 2017, the respondent picked up quarrel with co-sister and insulted other family members. On 14.01.2018, the respondent locked herself in room with knife from the kitchen and threatened of committing suicide, which compelled the petitioner to call police. The police counseled the respondent later. It is also contended that the respondent has failed to pay EMIs, which she was required to pay and the same has been
paid by the petitioner. The respondent was in the habit of threatening the petitioner of committing suicide and implicating him with false case. It is further contended that the acts of the respondent caused immense and unbearable mental harassment to the petitioner. The petitioner has completely shattered and the matrimonial relations have irretrievably broken down and the respondent and petitioner are living separately from 28.07.2018. Hence, the petitioner sought for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
been served on the respondent-wife, she remained absent and placed exparte.
withdrawing the petition. Hence, she could not appear before the Trial Court. She further submits that the wife is required to be provided fair opportunity to contest the petition which contains false allegations. It is also submitted that in W.P.No.2844/2024, this Court has granted Rs.40,000/- monthly maintenance payable by the petitioner-husband to his minor daughter which clearly indicates that the petitioner-husband has neglected the wife and her daughter. However, a contrary claim is made in the petition for dissolution of marriage. Hence, she seeks to provide an opportunity to place the evidence before the Trial Court. She further submits that a time frame may be fixed for disposal of the petition by the Trial Court on providing opportunity to the wife to file her objections and to adduce evidence. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in the cases of 'SMT.GIRIJA v. ARAVIND' in MFA No.201000/2015 disposed of on 23.07.2021 and 'SMT.VYSHNAVEE VIKRANTH v. SRI.VIKRANTH JAGANNATH' in MFA No.6578/2021 disposed of on 05.12.2023 she submits that even the entire pleading and evidence is considered, the petitioner-husband has failed to
prove the grounds of cruelty. Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the exparte judgment.
record, the point that arise for consideration in this appeal is:
NC: 2024:KHC:19050-DB MFA No.2297/2020
"Whether the impugned judgment and decree of
the Trial Court calls for any interference in the present appeal?
ANALYSIS
daughter, it is not fair to throw her out unheard. Therefore, it would be just and appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to provide opportunity to the respondent-wife to file objections and adduce evidence. It is also open for the parties to explore the possibility of amicable resolution of the dispute before the Bangalore Mediation Centre.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 02.08.2019 in M.C.No.6362/2018 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru,
is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties, in accordance with law.
To avoid further delay, the parties are hereby directed to appear before the trial Court on 01.07.2024 without further notice.
On such appearance, the trial Court shall give reasonable opportunity to both parties and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.
Both parties shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the matter. If any of the parties fail to appear, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
Having regard to the relationship of the parties, no order as to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
BSR/RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the ex parte divorce decree granted on grounds of cruelty should be set aside to give the wife an opportunity to contest?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt.Girija v. AravindReferred
'SMT.GIRIJA v. ARAVIND' in MFA No.201000/2015 disposed of on 23.07.2021
Smt.Vyshnavee Vikranth v. Sri.Vikranth JagannathReferred
'SMT.VYSHNAVEE VIKRANTH v. SRI.VIKRANTH JAGANNATH' in MFA No.6578/2021 disposed of on 05.12.2023
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Anu Jain
Sri. Dhareshwar G.M.
K.S. Mudagal
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
