Allowed

Smt Roopa v. Sri Kiran Shetty

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024MFA/3808/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged an ex parte divorce decree granted on grounds of cruelty, contending she was never served as the husband showed a wrong address. The High Court found service doubtful, set aside the decree, remanded the matrimonial petition to the Family Court, and awarded litigation expenses to the wife.

What did the court decide?

Ex parte divorce decree dated 01.08.2019 set aside; matter remanded to Family Court; Rs.25,000/- litigation expenses payable by respondent to appellant.

Smt Roopa Vs Sri Kiran Shetty — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21534-DB MFA No.3808/2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3808/2020(FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT ROOPA W/O SRI KIRAN SHETTY D/O SRINIVASA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT RAMANAGARA HOUSE UPPINANGADY VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR TALUK, D K DISTRICT – 574 211

¶10

WRONGLY SHOWN AS A RESIDENT OF NO.409, 1^ST FLOOR, MOHAN NILAYA AMKANNA ROAD, BANASAWADI BENGALURU - 560 043 … APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V R, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI KIRAN SHETTY S/O N BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.314, 9^TH C MAIN HBBR LAYOUT, 1^ST BLOCK BANASAWADI BENGALURU - 560 043 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.BABY SINDHU P, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANJUNATHA PRASANNA H A., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2019 PASSED IN M.C NO.381/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:21534-DB MFA No.3808/2020

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Though the matter is listed for hearing on interlocutory applications, with consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶22

The appellant and respondent are Hindus and governed by the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 22.08.2016 at Kotecha Hall, Padil, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada. The respondent filed M.C.No.381/2019 before II-Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru seeking decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. In the said petition, service of notice on the present appellant was held sufficient and she was placed exparte.

¶23

The Trial Court on recording the evidence of the present respondent and on hearing him, allowed the petition and granted decree of divorce. As per the decree and preamble of the judgment, petition is filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. However, in the operative portion of the judgment, a

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21534-DB MFA No.3808/2020

¶25

correction is made by the Trial Court saying that petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act is allowed.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that at the relevant time, the appellant was residing in Uppinangady. But the respondent showing wrong address, managed to get endorsement “unclaimed” and secured exparte decree.

¶27

Admittedly, as per the parties the marriage took place in Padil, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada. Petition was filed within three years of the marriage. Respondent produced rental agreement which was in his favour claiming that, that was the address of the appellant also. That was not the address of the respondent on the date of the petition. Therefore, there is some force in the submission of the appellant’s Counsel that no notice was served on the appellant. She needs to be given a fair opportunity of hearing.

¶28

Even though, it is contended that the appellant is also gainfully employed, interim alimony or permanent alimony issue can be decided by the Trial Court and the respondent has to pay litigation expenses of this case. Therefore, the matter can be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration for giving opportunity to the parties. Hence the following:

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21534-DB MFA No.3808/2020

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i). The appeal is allowed.

¶32

ii). The impugned judgment and decree dated 01.08.2019 in M.C.No.381/2019 passed by the II-Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶33

iii). The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration on giving opportunity to both the parties.

¶34

iv). To avoid further delay, the parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 15.07.2024 without any further notice.

¶35

v). The litigation expenses of this appeal is quantified at Rs.25,000/-. Respondent herein shall deposit the same before the Trial Court on or before the date of his appearance. On such deposit, the Trial Court shall release the same to the appellant/wife.

¶36

vi) Appellant shall file her statement of objection before the Trial Court within 30 days from the date of her appearance. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21534-DB MFA No.3808/2020

¶38

any rate within six months from the date of filing of statement of objection.

¶39

vii). Appellant is at liberty to seek remedy before the Trial Court for interim alimony/permanent alimony and litigation expenses relating to the proceedings before the Trial Court.

¶40

Pending IAs stood disposed of.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

PKN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Smt Roopa v. Sri Kiran Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Roopa v. Sri Kiran Shetty

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

State of Karnataka Vs Girisha @ Giriraju

Shri Rama Nayaka Vs United India Insurance Company Limited

Sri M H Devaraja Vs Smt M B Sheela

M Shylaja Vs Ramesh Babu v R

Sri B S Jyothi Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation

B.N.Dhanalakshmi Vs S.Naresh