Dismissed¶65

V Manjunatha v. Smt B Neetha

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2025MFA/4819/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, MFA No. 4819 of 2018 (MC), decided 14.11.2025, coram Jayant Banerji and K.V. Aravind JJ. Appeal under S.28(1) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against rejection of divorce petition under S.13(1)(ia)/13(1)(i-a) in M.C. No.20/2015 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur, decree dated 17.02.2018). Marriage 01.09.2011; one child; respondent did not cross-examine or lead evidence; only wedding card Ex.P1. Held: vague/non-specific allegations cannot ground a divorce decree as a perfunctory exercise; trial Court judgment and decree upheld; appeal dismissed; no one appeared for the respondent before the High Court.

What did the court decide?

The Court agreed with the trial Court's observation that the allegations made in the divorce petition were non-specific (as was the examination-in-chief of the appellant). ¶57

V Manjunatha Vs Smt B Neetha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB MFA No. 4819 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^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. 4819 OF 2018 (MC)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

V. MANJUNATHA, S/O. LATE. VELUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT. 4^TH CROSS, BEHIND PUSPANJALI TALKIES, VISWANATH COLONY, HULIYAR ROAD, HIRIYUR TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577598.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI VEERESHA E., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT. B. NEETHA, W/O. V. MANJUNATHA, D/O. K. THANGAVELU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT. C/O. SUGUNA POULTRY, KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577598.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE(ABSENT))

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB MFA No. 4819 of 2018

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.02.2018 PASSED IN M.C.No.20/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIRIYUR, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment

¶30

and decree dated 17.02.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur in M.C. No.20/2015. The appellant is the petitioner before the trial Court.

¶31

The case of the appellant was that he got married to the respondent on 01.09.2011 at Srimathi Thulasi B Narayanarao Kalyana Mantapa, Hiriyur according to the rites and customs prevailing in their community. Thereafter, they led marital life for two years, during which the respondent gave birth to one child. Thereafter,

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB MFA No. 4819 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

the respondent changed her attitude towards the appellant

¶35

and his mother and she never had love and affection towards the appellant, always showing neglecting attitude. It was stated that the respondent made the life of the appellant miserable. The respondent used to act brutally and used to shout loudly stating that she does not want to live with the appellant. The respondent is not willing to join the company of the appellant.

¶36

In response to the notice, the respondent appeared through counsel but failed to file objections before the trial Court. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and produced his wedding card which was marked as Ex.P1. The respondent did not cross-examine the PW.1 nor did she lead evidence.

¶37

The following points were framed for

¶38

consideration by the Court.

¶39

"1. Whether the petitioner makes out grounds to grant decree of divorce?

¶40

2. What Order?"

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB MFA No. 4819 of 2018

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The findings on the points were as follows:

¶45

"Point No.1:- In the Negative.

¶46

Point No.2:- As per final order for following"

¶47

The trial Court observed that the petitioner

¶48

failed to lead evidence of any supporting witnesses to prove the illegal acts of the respondent. The trial Court noted that no doubt it is an internal matter between the parties, but the same by itself cannot be a ground to grant divorce. The allegations of desertion or cruelty or mental torture, are required to be proved by the petitioner. The

¶49

trial Court noted that only vague allegations have been made and therefore, the divorce cannot be granted. It was further noted that allegation of illicit relation was also raised by the petitioner but no supportive evidence or document was laid. Accordingly, the point No.1 was answered in the negative and the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955¹ was rejected.

¶50

1 the Act

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB MFA No. 4819 of 2018

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The learned counsel for the appellant has stated

¶54

that the misconduct and suspicious behaviour of the respondent was clearly pleaded in the petition for divorce, which was also proved by the examination-in-chief of the appellant. It is stated that despite the respondent not leading evidence nor cross-examining the appellant, the application for divorce ought to have been allowed. It is stated that for nearly thirteen years, the parties have been living separately and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the marriage.

¶55