Mr. Vinay Raj H D Vs Smt. Souharda Rudrappa

SMT. SOUHARDA RUDRAPPA W/O. VINAY RAJ H.D. DO RUDRAPPA K.A AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT. HOSATHOTA ESTATE, KUNDUR POST MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU-577132

¶18

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N. DINESH RAO & SRI. NAYAN KUMAR S, ADVOCATES)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23895-DB MFA No. 3566 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2025 PASSED IN MC NO. 224/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(i)(ia)(ib) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

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

¶26

The appellant has called in question the Order and Decree dated 01.03.2025 in M.C. No.224/2022 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru [for short, ' the Family Court ']. The Family Court has dissolved the appellant’s marriage to the respondent [ which is solemnized on 01.10.2017] both on the ground of " cruelty " and " desertion " under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short, ' the HM Act ']. The appellant is aggrieved by the Family Court’s decision to dissolve the marriage and

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23895-DB MFA No. 3566 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

its direction under Section 25 of the HM Act to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/to the respondent as permanent alimony within three [3] weeks creating a charge on the properties measuring 20 acres in Sy.No.264 and 27 guntas in Sy.No.207 of Pandaravalli Village, Jagara Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk [ the subject property ] until the realization of permanent alimony.

¶30

This Court must record that both Mrs. Bhushani Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. N. Dinesh Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent, are first heard on whether this Court must consider the merits of the corresponding case on dissolution of marriage either on the ground of " cruelty " or " desertion ", and the learned counsels, on instructions, state that the appellant and the respondent acknowledge that the marriage is irretrievably broken down and that there is no possibility of restitution of conjugal rights and

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23895-DB MFA No. 3566 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

hence, they are willing to agree for dissolution of marriage without allegations against the other. However, the learned counsels are categorical that this Court must decide on the merits of the Family Court's decision to grant permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/- to the respondent.

¶34

Mr. N. Dinesh Rao, relying upon the evidence let in by the parties, canvasses on behalf of the respondent that the appellant cannot dispute that he owns substantial assets [ immovable properties ] and that though the respondent is presently employed with M/s. Cognizant and drawing salary in excess of Rs.1,14,000/-, she does not have any asset and she is constrained to live in Bengaluru in a rented premises. The learned counsel also canvasses that the appellant must be directed to return her jewellery

¶35

Mrs. Bhushani Kumar on the other hand, submits the appellant, who is an

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23895-DB MFA No. 3566 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

agriculturist/planter, has availed loans and much of the income generated is spent in discharging the loan and in fact, the learned counsel submits that the respondent is financially better not only because of employment but also because her family owns substantial properties with only she and her sister being entitled to those properties.

¶39

Be these as it may, what is salient is that

¶40

the respondent is not seeking enhancement in the permanent alimony and her request, apart from the alimony as directed by the Family Court, is for return of her jewellery. On behalf of the appellant, Mrs. Bhushani Kumar, while asserting that the jewellery are not with the appellant, submits that her instructions are that the appellant can pay the respondent over a period of six months a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in full and final settlement.

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23895-DB MFA No. 3566 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

6. The submission present a narrow canvas

¶44

for this Court's decision in the present proceedings and the question is:

¶45

Whether it would be appropriate for this Court to dispose of the appeal, recording that the appellant and the respondent have agreed for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, modifying the Famil y Court’s direction on permanent alimony.

¶46

Mrs. Bhushani Kumar and Mr. N. Dinesh

¶47

Rao, are heard on this specific question and given all the circumstances borne out by the evidence, this Court opines that a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- would be just and permanent alimony but the appellant cannot drive the respondent to further proceedings delaying the payment. The appellant must tender this amount within four [4] months from today; or else, be liable to pay this amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. This Court is also of the opinion that to ensure that there is no precipitation and mutual

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23895-DB MFA No. 3566 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

interests are balanced, the charge that is created must continue until the amount as now directed is paid. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

[a] The marriage between the appellant and the respondent solemnized on 01.10.2017 is dissolved by a mutual consent as contemplated under Section 13B of the HM Act with both the appellant and the respondent withdrawing all the allegations against each other.

¶53

[b] The respondent is granted a permanent alimony of Rs.32,00,000/-, directing the appellant to pay this amount within four [4] months from today to the respondent stipulating that there shall be charge on the subject property for this amount and interest that would be payable if there is any delay in paying this amount.

¶54