Allowed¶49

Smt. Roopa @ Renuka W/O Sharaanappa Mellagatti v. Sharanappa S/O Muttappa Mellagatti

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2025MFA/102331/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Divorce appeal; mental cruelty; perverse finding; ex-parte decree; remand for fresh consideration; one opportunity to rebut cruelty allegations; Hindu Marriage Act 1955 S.28(1) and S.13(1); M.C.No.8/2021; Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Shiggaon sitting at Savanur; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; MFA 102331 of 2024; decided 23-09-2025; parties to appear 27.10.2025; NC: 2025:KHC-D:12905-DB.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree dated 14.10.2022 in M.C.No.8/2021 set aside; matter remitted to the trial Court to reconsider M.C. 8/2021 by providing opportunity to the parties and to dispose of the petition in accordance with law; appellant and respondent directed to appear before the trial Court on 27.10.2025; no orders as to costs. ¶49

Smt. Roopa @ Renuka W/O Sharaanappa Mellagatti Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment and decree (decree of dissolution dated 14.10.2022 in M.C.No.8/2021) call for any interference?

¶38

Court's answer

The finding of the trial Court that the appellant/wife subjected the respondent/husband to mental cruelty is perverse, since the trial Court did not assign any reason as to the nature of cruelty alleged or how the cruelties were proved, and ought to have referred to the cruelties pleaded and whether those pleadings were supported by cogent and legally acceptable evidence of mental cruelty.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

A finding that the appellant was quarrelsome is by itself not sufficient to jump to the conclusion of mental cruelty without explaining the nature and instances of the quarrels by the appellant with the respondent.

¶42

Key takeaways

Dissolution of marriage has wide repercussions on the parties to the proceedings; accordingly, the appellant is required to be provided one opportunity to rebut the allegations of cruelty as pleaded by the respondent before the trial Court.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M.F.A. No.102331 of 2024 (MC), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (oral judgment dated 23.09.2025, per Vijaykumar A. Patil J.; coram S. Sunil Dutt Yadav and Vijaykumar A. Patil JJ.) — Wife's miscellaneous first appeal under S.28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the ex-parte decree of dissolution dated 14.10.2022 in M.C.No.8/2021 (husband's petition under S.13(1) on the ground of cruelty) allowed; decree set aside and matter remitted. The Division Bench held the trial Court's finding of mental cruelty perverse: the trial Court assigned no reason as to the nature of cruelty alleged or how the cruelties were proved, and a finding that the wife was 'quarrelsome' was not by itself sufficient to conclude mental cruelty without explaining the nature and instances of the quarrels. Since dissolution of marriage has wide repercussions, the appellant was granted one opportunity to rebut the cruelty allegations; both parties directed to appear before the trial Court on 27.10.2025. No orders as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12905-DB MFA No. 102331 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶8

M.F.A. NO.102331 OF 2024 (MC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. ROOPA @ RENUKA W/O. SHARANAPPA MELLAGATTI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BISALAKOPPA, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. KARWAR.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH S. BARADOOR, ADV. FOR SRI. S. G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶15

SHARANAPPA S/O. MUTTAPPA MELLAGATTI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BAKERY WORK, R/O. KURUBAGONDA VILLAGE, TQ & DIST. HAVERI, NOW AT S.L.V. IYANGAR BAKERY, GUTTAL ROAD, OPP. K.E.B OFFICE, TQ & DIST. HAVERI-581110.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. AMIT ANANDHALLI, ADV. FOR SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATES)

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.28(1) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.10.2022, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIGGOAN, SITTING AT SAVANUR, IN M.C. NO.08/2021 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12905-DB MFA No. 102331 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND

¶24

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

¶27

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2022 passed in M.C.No.8/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon, Sitting at Savanur (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”).

¶28

Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 04.02.2012 at Maruti temple, Sirsi as per the customs and rituals of their community and it was subsequently registered. It is averred that out of their wedlock a female child namely Sinchana was born in the year 2013 and the appellant has been looking after the child. It is further averred that the appellant always quarreled with the respondent and since 01.01.2019 they are residing separately without any cohabitation. It is also averred that the appellant has been residing at her parental house for many years and has refused to return to the matrimonial home.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12905-DB MFA No. 102331 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Hence, the respondent filed a petition for dissolution of marriage which came to be allowed.

¶32

Sri. Manjunath S. Baradoor, learned counsel for Sri.S.G.Kadadakatti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is ex-parte without service of notice. It is further submitted that the respondent with intention to obtain a decree of divorce without contest had given incorrect address of the appellant. It is also submitted that notice of the trial Court proceedings were never served on the appellant and the appellant does not have legal knowledge and she has no independent means to defend the proceedings. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by remanding the matter back to the trial Court to reconsider the case on merits after providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶33

Sri.Amit Anandhalli, learned counsel for Sri.Naveen

¶34

Chatrad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12905-DB MFA No. 102331 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

submits that the trial Court has recorded a clear finding that inspite of service of notice, the appellant has not appeared, hence, she was placed ex-parte . It is further submitted that the respondent has adduced the evidence by examining four witnesses and got marked three documents which clearly demonstrate that the appellant caused cruelty on the respondent and refused to cohabit. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶38

We have heard the arguments of learned counsel the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned judgment and decree call for any interference?

¶39

The material on record indicates that the respondent filed M.C.No.8/2021 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground that the appellant could not join the matrimonial home. The records further indicate that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 04.02.2012 at Maruti temple of Sirsi as per the customs and rituals of their community. It is

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12905-DB MFA No. 102331 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

contended that out of their wedlock a female child namely Sinchana was born in the year 2013 and the appellant has been looking after the child. The impugned judgment indicates that notice is served on the appellant, however, she remained absent, hence, she was placed ex-parte and the trial Court proceeded to dissolve the marriage. On perusal of the reasoning of the trial Court, it is noticed that the trial Court has not assigned any reason whatsoever with regard to the nature of cruelty alleged by the respondent/husband and how those cruelties are proved in the evidence. The trial Court proceeded to dissolve the marriage by recording that PW.1 to PW.4 have stated that the appellant/wife always quarreled with the respondent/husband and subjected him to mental cruelty, the said evidence was unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. In our considered view the finding recorded by the trial Court is perverse, the trial Court ought to have referred as to what are the cruelties pleaded and whether those pleadings are supported with cogent and legally acceptable evidence to arrive at the conclusion that there was mental cruelty. The finding of the trial Court that the appellant was quarrelsome, that itself is not sufficient to jump to a conclusion that there was a mental cruelty

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12905-DB MFA No. 102331 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

on the respondent/husband without explaining the nature and instances of quarrel by the appellant with the respondent. We are conscious of the fact that the dissolution of marriage has wide repercussions on the parties to the proceedings and the appellant is required to be provided one opportunity to rebut the allegations of cruelty as pleaded by the respondent before the trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the parties in all fairness submit that they would appear before the trial Court on a given date after remand. Their submission is placed on record. This court proceeds to pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47