Appeal against a Family Court decree allowing a husband's restitution of conjugal rights petition was dismissed because the appellant took no steps to serve notice on the respondent and did not prosecute the appeal despite repeated 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:2765-DB MFA No. 6757 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH 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. 6757 OF 2017 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT PAVITHRA H V W/O DR ARUN J R AND D/O VENKATESH HARAVU MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/A ARALIMARA BEEDHI HARAVU VILLAGE KYATHANAHALLI POST PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571434
Digitally signed by VEENA KUMARI B Location: High Court of Karnataka
PRESENTLY R/A NO.16, 2ND CROSS OPP.NAYANDAHALLI RAILWAY STATION VINAYAKA NAGAR BENGALURU-560039
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M R MAMATHA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
DR ARUN J R S/O LATE G RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A BEERALINGESHWARA NILAYA
NC: 2024:KHC:2765-DB MFA No. 6757 of 2017
6TH CROSS, A BLOCK GANDHI NAGAR SHIMOGA-577201
…RESPONDENT
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.03.07.2017 PASSED ON MC NO.80/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, DR. H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
None appear for the appellant either physically or through video conference.
Though notice was ordered in this appeal on 05.10.2018, but, till date, the appellant has not evinced any interest in ensuring the service of notice upon the sole respondent.
On 19.07.2023 two weeks time was granted to the appellant to do the needful.
NC: 2024:KHC:2765-DB MFA No. 6757 of 2017
Despite which, the appellant has not done needful in the matter.
Thus, when the appellant is not evincing any interest
in taking steps to the respondent in this appeal of the year 2017, there is no point in retaining the matter awaiting the appearance of the learned counsel for the appellant in this matter.
Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed for not taking
steps as well as for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt Pavithra H V
Dr Arun J R
H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
Ramachandra D. Huddar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
