Matrimonial first appeal against a decree dissolving marriage under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant, appearing in person, repeatedly failed to appear and comply with office objections despite several opportunities and a cost order, so the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
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:2238-DB MFA No. 3471 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3471 OF 2020 (MC)
BETWEEN:
SRI ARUNKUMAR D.R. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, S/O SRI RAMEGOWDA, R/AT REDDYDEVARAHALLY, G. BOMMASANDRA POST, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANOOR TALUK, CHICKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561213 MOBILE NO.9740514638
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI.ARUN KUMAR D.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. RATHNAMMA C.N. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O SRI. ARUNKUMAR D.R. R/AT CHANDANADOORU VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHICKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 208.
…RESPONDENT
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2019 PASSED IN M.C.NO. 42/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GOWRIBIDANUR, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(a) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, DR.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Called again in the afternoon.
person has again remained absent.
following observation:
" None appear for the appellant, either physically or through video conference.
In spite of granting sufficient time of not less than three times the appellant has neither complied the office objections and
nor appeared and nor even shown nay reason for nonappearance. Hence, though the appeal could have been dismissed for noncompliance of office objections and for non-prosecution, considering the fact that appellant is appearing as party-in-person, as a final last chance, a week's time is granted to comply with the office objections by imposing a cost of `500/- payable by the appellant to the Legal Services Committee of this Court within three days from today and filing a compliance memo along with original receipt in the registry to that effect within the said time.
In case, if, the office objections are not complied after payment of the cost, with the time granted, list the matter on 17.01.2024."
appellant has not filed any memo along with receipt showing the payment of the cost as ordered above. Further, the office objections have remained not complied.
NC: 2024:KHC:2238-DB MFA No. 3471 of 2020
the appeal which is of the year 2020. As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections as well as for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
Sk/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Arunkumar D.R.
Smt. Rathnamma C.N.
H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Ramachandra D. Huddar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
