Sri Beeraiah @ Hosabeeraiah Vs Smt Renukamma

SRI BEERAIAH @ HOSABEERAIAH S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHASTRYPALYA, MADHURE HOBLI, KANASWADI POST, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK- 561 203, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. V.F. KUMBAR., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT RENUKAMMA W/O. SRI BEERAIAH @ HOSABEERAIAH D/O. SRI SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT GANGAIAYANA PALYA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI, RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI POST- 562162 BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:21973-DB MFA No. 2234 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.4 IN M.C.NO. 10060/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE 4^TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER SECTION 11 OF CPC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶25

The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2024 in MC No.10060/2020 on the file of the IV Additional and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District [for short, ' the family Court ']. The family Court by the impugned order has accepted the application [IA No.4] filed by the respondent under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure holding that appellant's petition under Section 13 (1)

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21973-DB MFA No. 2234 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short, ' the HM Act' ] is barred by res judicata . The family Court's opinion in this regard is in the premise that the appellant had earlier filed the petition in MC No.15/2002¹ under the provisions of Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the HM Act, which is decided on merits on 12.12.2012 on remand by this Court and notwithstanding the same, the present petition is filed.

¶29

Sri V.F. Kumbar, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is a factual error in the family Court opining that the earlier petition in MC No.15/2002 [originally MC No.11/2001] is also for dissolution of marriage because such petition was filed under Section 12 of the HM Act for declaration that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was a nullity for lack of consummation of marriage and such other grounds. To buttress his

¶30

1 This petition is initially in MC No.11/2001, but is subsequently re-numbered on transfer.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21973-DB MFA No. 2234 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

arguments, he relies upon the appellant's contention in the statement of objections filed opposing the respondent's application for dismissal of the case on the ground of res judicata. The respondent though served has remained absent.

¶34

It is seen from paragraph 21 of the impugned order that the family Court has proceeded essentially on the footing that both the petitions, whereas the earlier petition in MC No.15/2002 and the present petition in MC No.10060/2020 are filed under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HM Act. If the earlier petition is under Section 12 of the HM Act for declaration that the marriage must be annulled on certain grounds as is provided thereunder and the present petition is under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HM Act there be a factual error resulting in an erroneous order. The family Court should have permitted the parties to examine themselves in support of the cause of actions set forth in these two

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21973-DB MFA No. 2234 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

petitions before it could have dismissed the petition on the ground of res judicata . Therefore, there must be interference on this limited ground but because the respondent has remained absent in the present proceedings, the family Court must issue fresh notice to the respondent and then reconsider the respondent's application for a just decision on merits.

¶38

In the light of the afore, the following

¶39

ORDER

¶40

[A] The appeal is allowed-in-part and the family Court's impugned order dated 13.12.2024 is set aside and the respondent's application [IA No.4] in MC No.10060/2020 [originally numbered as No.68/2019] is remanded for re-consideration restoring the proceedings.

¶41