Dismissed¶44

Smt Shwetha v. Vs Sri Shivakumar H B

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2025MFA/2238/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MFA No. 2238 of 2022 (FC), NC: 2025:KHC:34122-DB, High Court of Karnataka, decided 01-09-2025, Jayant Banerji and Umesh M Adiga JJ. Appeal under S.19(1) Family Courts Act against Family Court Shivamogga judgment dated 23.09.2021 in M.C.No.56/2020 refusing divorce under Ss.13(1)(ia) and (ib) Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Cruelty plea based on Rs.9,50,000 loan spent on husband's heart treatment and non-repayment, drunken quarrels; desertion for over six years. Held: PW.1/PW.2 testimony unclear, no other witness including parents examined, PW.2's personal knowledge unexplained; Family Court's appreciation of evidence proper; appeal dismissed; respondent served and unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

None; the Family Court's dismissal of the appellant's divorce petition was upheld. ¶44

Smt Shwetha v Vs Sri Shivakumar H B — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Family Court's dismissal of the appellant's divorce petition was upheld.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant proved cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — viz. spending Rs.9,50,000/- on the respondent's treatment by obtaining a loan which he failed to repay, his drunkenness and quarrelling — entitling her to a decree of divorce. +1 more

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The testimony of PW.1 together with that of PW.2 does not give a clear picture as to the state of affairs; no other witness, including the appellant's parents, was produced, and it is not reflected how PW.2 had personal knowledge of the matters testified by her.

¶39

Key takeaways

The finding recorded by the Family Court, being based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, is justified; consequently the appeal has no merit.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous First Appeal (FC) No. 2238 of 2022 (NC: 2025:KHC:34122-DB), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 01.09.2025 (Oral Judgment per Jayant Banerji, J.; coram also Umesh M Adiga, J.). Wife's appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2021 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga in M.C.No.56/2020 dismissing her petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Pleaded grounds: Rs.9,50,000/- spent for the respondent-husband's heart treatment by obtaining a loan which he never repaid (cruelty); his habit of returning home drunk and quarrelling; and desertion for more than six years after he ousted her and the child from his home despite panchayat efforts. Held: the testimony of PW.1 and PW.2 (a cousin who merely reiterated the petition averments) gave no clear picture of the state of affairs; no other witness, including the appellant's parents, was examined and PW.2's personal knowledge stood unexplained; the Family Court's finding, based on proper appreciation of the evidence, was justified; the appeal was dismissed. Respondent served and unrepresented.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34122-DB MFA No. 2238 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2238 OF 2022 (FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT SHWETHA V W/O SHIVAKUMAR H B, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O 5^TH MAIN, III CROSS, SIDDESHWARANAGAR, CHIKKAL, SHIVAMOGA - 577 201

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. K.V. SATEESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SHIVAKUMAR H B S/O BASAVEGOWA AGED 39 YEARS R/O BEHIND JELLY MACHINE GURUPURA SHIVAMOGA - 577 201. NOW C/O. GEETHA, 7^TH CROSS, RIGHT SIDE, SHANTHINAGAR, RAGIGUDDA SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶13

THIS MFA FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2021 PASSED IN M.C. NO.56/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13-1(ia) AND (ib) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:34122-DB MFA No. 2238 of 2022

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶22

Service of notice upon the respondent has been held to be sufficient by order of the Court dated 17.01.2025. However, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

¶23

Under challenge, in this appeal is a judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Shivamogga in M.C.No.56/2020 passed on 23.09.2021, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13-1(ia) and (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had spent an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- for treatment of respondent by obtaining a loan. But, he failed to make any effort to repay the amount, which amounted to cruelty. It is further stated that respondent did not take care of her or her child and he used to be quarrelling with her

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34122-DB MFA No. 2238 of 2022

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

for various reasons after coming home in a drunken state. It is stated that the respondent had deserted the appellant for more than six years. But, ignoring all the aforesaid facts, the Family Court denied the decree of divorce to the appellant.

¶27

We have perused the record and considered the submission advanced on behalf of the counsel for the appellant.

¶28

From the record it appears that the appellant filed a petition under Section 13-1(ia) and (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce, pleading that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 06.05.2008 in Sri Balasubramanyaswamy Samudaya Bhavana at Guddekal, Shivamogga, as per Hindu customs and rituals. From their wedlock, a female child was born, who, at the time of filing of the matrimonial case was stated to be seven years of age. It is stated that the appellant was discharging her duties as a dutiful wife. But, the respondent failed to look after the appellant and their child. The respondent is in the habit of drinking alcohol and he used to come to the house at night in a drunken state and he used to quarrel with the appellant for silly reasons. In the year 2003, the respondent was admitted to hospital for a heart disease and at that

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34122-DB MFA No. 2238 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

time, parents of the appellant had spent nearly Rs.9,50,000/- for his treatment by obtaining loan. However, the loan amount was not repaid by the respondent. When the appellant insisted to the respondent to repay the loan amount, he ousted her and her child from his home and thereafter, she started residing in the house of her parents since more than six years.

¶32

The appellant examined herself as PW.1 and also got marked three documents from Exs.P-1 to 3 and she examined one more witness as PW.2 and closed her evidence.

¶33

In her testimony, which was by way of an affidavit, PW.1 reiterated the facts mentioned in her petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce.

¶34

One Smt. S.C. Latha Kumari, wife of Shantha Kumar gave her testimony as PW.2 by way of an affidavit. She has stated that she is a relative of the appellant. She is the cousin of the appellant and had attended the marriage of the appellant and the respondent on the date of their marriage. She has stated that respondent started pin pricking the appellant time and again. Apart from that, she merely testified what the PW.1 had stated in the

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34122-DB MFA No. 2238 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

petition and reiterated in the affidavit. No other facts were mentioned.

¶38

A perusal of the aforesaid testimony reflects that apart from a bald statement made in the examination-in-chief that after the quarrel between the appellant and her husband, her husband ousted her and his daughter from his house, and left with no option, the appellant went to her parents house with her child and resides there since more than six years, no other specific and clear testimony has been given. There are only statements to the effect that, the appellant made efforts to join him through the elders of the family and inspite of several panchayaths the efforts went in vain.

¶39

The aforesaid testimony as well as the testimony of PW.2 do not give a clear picture as to the state of affairs. No other witness has been produced by the appellant. Even her parents have not been produced to testify in respect of any fact that was in their knowledge. It is also not reflected as to how the PW.2 had personal knowledge of the matters testified by her.

¶40