Dismissed¶50

Sri T B Jayanna v. Smt J P Bharathi

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2025MFA/4662/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Desertion; Section 13(1)(ib) Hindu Marriage Act 1955; proof of date of desertion must appear in evidence and not merely in pleadings; divorce petition dismissed; appeal under Section 19(1) Family Courts Act dismissed; Karnataka High Court Division Bench; MFA 4662/2018 against Senior Civil Judge Kadur M.C No.30/2014; husband's remarriage to Smt. B.R. Rajini noted in trial record; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The requirement of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act is not fulfilled: although para No.9 of the petition mentioned the cause of action as arising on 01.03.2002, the petitioner's examination-in-chief affidavit dated 02.11.2015 contained no statement or indication of the date on which the respondent deserted him. ¶46

Sri T B Jayanna Vs Smt J P Bharathi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/husband proves that the respondent/wife, having withdrawn herself from his society and stayed away by deserting him without any justifiable cause or reasons, committed the matrimonial offence of desertion, entitling him to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion (trial Court Point No.1). +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

Passing observation that the trial Court did not address the requirements for grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act while deciding the petition.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

¶46

Key takeaways

Since the requirement of Section 13(1)(ib) is not fulfilled, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA No. 4662 of 2018 (MC), filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2018 of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadur in M.C No.30/2014, dismissing the husband's petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of desertion. Held (dismissing the appeal): although para No.9 of the petition pleaded that the cause of action arose on 01.03.2002 when the respondent left the matrimonial home, the petitioner's examination-in-chief affidavit dated 02.11.2015 contained no statement or indication of the date on which the respondent deserted him; the requirement of Section 13(1)(ib) was therefore not fulfilled. The Court also observed that the trial Court had not addressed the requirements of Section 13(1)(ib), and noted trial-court material indicating the petitioner had married another lady, Smt. B.R. Rajini, with whom he had a daughter, Shamita. Bench: Jayant Banerji (authoring judge) and K. V. Aravind, JJ.; decided 27.11.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49366-DB MFA No. 4662 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4662 OF 2018 (MC)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. T B JAYANNA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS AGRICUTLURIST R/O G THIMMAPURA VILLAGE KADURAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK - 560083 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. B REDDI ANANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. J P BHARATHI W/O T B JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O JAVOOR VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK – 577 145

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. S SHIVAPRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09/03/2018, PASSED IN MC NO.30/14, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADUR, DISMISSING THE PETITION U/SEC.13(ib) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶19

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

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49366-DB MFA No. 4662 of 2018

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

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

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶26

This appeal is filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2018, wrongly mentioned as 09.03.2014 in the M.F.A. passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kadur in M.C No.30/2014. In the aforesaid matrimonial case, the petitioner / appellant, who is the husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955¹ to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage solemnized between him and the respondent on 14.07.1989. It was stated in the petition that the respondent had not discharged her duties as a dutiful Hindu woman and was not allowing the petitioner to lead his conjugal life and also there is no co-habitation between them. When the things stood thus, the respondent told that she would go to her parent’s house at

¶27

1 Act

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49366-DB MFA No. 4662 of 2018

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Javoor village and she left the petitioner's house, but did not return. When the petitioner asked the respondent to come to his house, she told that she is ill and will return after gaining health. But the petitioner learnt that there was no health problem to her and she was evading to join the petitioner. The petition for divorce was filed on 04.04.2014, in which it was further stated that the cause of action for the petition arose on and from 01.03.2002 when the respondent left the petitioner's house stating that she would not come to his house.

¶31

The respondent appeared through her counsel and filed objection admitting her marriage to the petitioner. Other allegations were denied. She stated that the petitioner was not discharging his duties as a dutiful husband. He was not providing food and other necessities to the respondent and was not showing any interest towards the respondent. The respondent stated that she was ready to discharge her duties as a dutiful wife and was also ready to lead marital life with the petitioner but the petitioner himself is not allowing her to lead marital life.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:49366-DB MFA No. 4662 of 2018

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

During the course of evidence, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 documents. The respondent examined herself as RW.1 and got marked four documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. The following points arose for determination of the trial Court:

¶36

“1. Whether the petitioner / husband proves that, the respondent / wife having withdrawn herself from his society staying way from him by deserting him without any justifiable cause or reasons and hence she has committed matrimonial offence of desertion and hence he is entitled to decree of divorce on the ground of desertion?

¶37

2. What order?”

¶38

The findings of the Court were as follows:

¶39

“Point No.1 : In the negative.

¶40

Point No.2 : As per the final orders. ”

¶41

In the reasons that are mentioned in the judgment,

¶42

it is stated that in the cross-examination of the petitioner, it was also suggested that the respondent was ready to join the petitioner, but the petitioner himself deposed that he was not ready to take the respondent to his marital house. The trial Court went on to consider certain documents which indicated

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49366-DB MFA No. 4662 of 2018

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

that the petitioner had married another lady by the name of Smt. B.R. Rajini and they had one daughter by the name of Shamita. In view of the aforesaid, the petition was dismissed after answering the point No.1 in the negative. Though we find that the requirement for grant of divorce as required under the provision of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act have not been addressed by the trial Court, when we asked the learned counsel for the appellant to demonstrate the date of her separation, she relied upon the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1)(1b) of the Act, particularly para No.9 thereof which reflects the cause of action had arisen on 01.03.2002 when the respondent left the house of the petitioner stating that she would not come back to the house of the petitioner.

¶46

We have perused the record and we find that though in para No.9 of the petition, the date of cause of action having arisen is mentioned as 01.03.2002, however in the examination-in-chief of the petitioner submitted by way of an affidavit on 02.11.2015 there is no statement or indication as to the date on which the respondent deserted the petitioner.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:49366-DB MFA No. 4662 of 2018

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

For this reason, we find that the requirement of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act is not fulfilled. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

¶51

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶52

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶53