Allowed

Smt. Uma v. Banashankar

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2024MFA/610/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife appealed a restitution of conjugal rights decree limited to evening visits at her maternal home. The court held such a decree wrongly legitimised the husband's void second marriage, modified the decree, and granted full restitution requiring resumption of marital life.

What did the court decide?

Decree modified: full restitution of conjugal rights granted in favour of appellant-wife against respondent-husband, who must resume marital life in his home.

Smt. Uma Vs Banashankar — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:14422-DB MFA No. 610 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 610 OF 2023 (FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. UMA W/O. BANASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.22, M.S. LANE, J. M. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI SAMEER S N, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BANASHANKAR, S/O. LATE APPAIAH SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO. 193, 5^TH CROSS, APPAIAH SWAMY LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 061.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.21.09.2021 PASSED IN MC NO.740/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS.

¶16

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:14422-DB MFA No. 610 of 2023

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is by the petitioner in M.C. No.740/2014 on the file of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶21

The parties to the proceeding are referred to as per their ranking in the Family Court.

¶22

Petitioner is the wife of the respondent.

¶23

Petitioner filed a petition in M.C. No.740/2014 for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage in M.C. No. 3261/2013. Both cases were clubbed together and the petition seeking restitution of conjugal right filed by the wife is allowed and the petition seeking dissolution of marriage filed by the husband is dismissed.

¶24

The Family Court taking note of the fact that the respondent husband has * lived with another lady and was staying with her has directed the respondent-husband to join the

¶25

* Corrected vide court order dated: 03.06.2024.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:14422-DB MFA No. 610 of 2023

¶28

petitioner and spend evening hours with the petitioner in her maternal home.

¶29

The petitioner/wife is aggrieved by the operative portion of the decree, which in substance has partially declined the relief. Hence the appeal by the petitioner-wife.

¶30

The respondent-husband has accepted the decree

¶31

for restitution of conjugal rights granted by the Family court and also the decree dismissing his petition for dissolution of marriage.

¶32

Respondent, though served, is not represented.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would

¶34

contend that the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights by directing the respondent-husband to spend the evening with the petitionerwife in her maternal home is erroneous. It is urged that the respondent-husband should be directed to take the petitionerwife to his house and to lead a normal marital life.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:14422-DB MFA No. 610 of 2023

¶37

This Court has considered the contentions raised at

¶38

the bar and also perused the records.

¶39

The following points arise for consideration:

¶40

(i) Whether the Family Court is justified in directing the respondent-husband to join the company of the petitionerwife only in the evening after having held that the petitioner has proved her case that the respondent-husband has neglected his wife.

¶41

As already noticed the husband has not challenged the decree. *Even if the husband has contracted a second marriage which is ab initio void, the Family Court after having recorded a finding that the petitioner-wife has made out a case for restitution of conjugal rights, could not restrict the decree for restitution of conjugal rights only to spend the evening with the petitioner, that too in her parents’ house. Such a decree confers some kind of legitimate status to the second marriage which is per se void. Though the decree does not specifically state that the respondent-husband is free to spend his time with *another lady, the decree directing him to

¶42

*Corrected vide court order dated: 03.06.2024.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:14422-DB MFA No. 610 of 2023

¶45

spend the evening with the petitioner/wife will be interpreted in this manner.

¶46

Once the Family Court records a finding that the petitioner-wife has made out a case for restitution of conjugal rights, the decree should direct the respondent-husband to take the petitioner-wife to his home to lead normal marital life with the petitioner. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. It is also relevant to note that the respondent-husband who has accepted the decree passed by the Family Court has not discharged the obligation cast on him in the decree. For the reasons recorded, the appeal has to be allowed.

¶47

Hence, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) Appeal is allowed .

¶50

(ii) The judgment and decree dated 21.09.2021 passed in M.C. No.740/2014 on the file of the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru are modified.

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:14422-DB MFA No. 610 of 2023

¶52

(iii) Decree for restitution of conjugal right is granted in favour of the appellant-wife and

¶53

against the respondent - husband.

¶54

(iv) The respondent - husband shall resume marital life in his home along with the appellant.

¶55

(v) Parties shall suffer their respective costs.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Smt. Uma v. Banashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Uma v. Banashankar

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

Smt Kasturi Vs Sri Venkatesh

Mr. Dinesh G Vs Smt. K.S. Shoba Devi

M/S. Star Advertising Vs Jagran Prakashan Ltd.

Smt Uma Vs Banashankar

Smt Divya C G Vs Sri Purushothamaraju H G

Sri Basavarajappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer