Appeal against dismissal of a divorce petition under the Indian Divorce Act was dismissed by the High Court as the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with office objections and pay imposed costs despite several opportunities.
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:1266-DB MFA No. 4884 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH 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. 4884 OF 2023 (IDA)
BETWEEN:
RAJU @ MUNIRAJU S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NANJARSAPPA LAYOUT, BEHIND CANARA BANK COLONY, NAGARABHAVI ROAD, BENGALURU 72.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
ALICE MARIE W/O RAJU @ MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SRIGANDHANAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM.
…RESPONDENT
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.55 OF INDIAN DIVORCE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.19.04.2023 PASSED IN MC NO.391/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU,
NC: 2024:KHC:1266-DB MFA No. 4884 of 2023
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.10(1)(x) OF INDIAN DIVORCE ACT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, DR.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned counsel for the appellant, who is physically present, appears to have herself not aware of the outstanding office objections for compliance and regarding the payment of the costs. It is only after the Court brought to her notice that the registry has noticed that the payment of the cost has not been reported as per the direction dated 05.01.2024, the learned counsel submits that she would pay the cost.
NC: 2024:KHC:1266-DB MFA No. 4884 of 2023
payment of the costs nor shown any convincing reasons for not doing the needful. Hence, it is inferred that the appellant is not interested in complying with the office objections and prosecuting the matter further.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for noncompliance of office objections.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
PSJ
List No.1 : Sl.No.13
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Raju @ Muniraju s/o Basappa
Alice Marie w/o Raju @ Muniraju
H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
Ramachandra D. Huddar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
