Allowed¶36

Smt. Shakeela v. Mr. Prakash Bhandary

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2025MFA/506/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, MFA No. 506 of 2018 (MC), decided 13-11-2025 (Jayant Banerji & K. V. Aravind JJ.). Appeal under S.28(1) Hindu Marriage Act by wife (Smt. Shakeela) against judgment/decree dt. 07.09.2017 of Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Puttur (MC No. 27/2009) allowing husband's (Prakash Bhandary) divorce petition under S.13(1)(i)(i-a)/(ia) HMA. Family Court judgment found wanting for absence of proper appreciation of evidence; appeal allowed and matter remanded for fresh decision. Counsel: Nishit Kumar Shetty (appellant); Prithviraj Shastry for G Balakrishna Shastry (respondent).

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; matter remanded to the competent Family Court for decision afresh after proper consideration of the evidence. ¶36

Smt. Shakeela Vs Mr. Prakash Bhandary — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46272-DB MFA No. 506 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶7

AND

¶8

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

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2018 (MC)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. SHAKEELA W/O PRAKASH BHANDARY, D/O SRI SHEENAPPA RAI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT ‘DEVIKRIPA NILAYA’, DHARKASTHU HOUSE, VOLAMOGADU VILLAGE, KAIKARA POST, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K – 574 201

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.)

¶14

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

¶15

AND:

¶16

MR. PRAKASH BHANDARY S/O JAGANNATHA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT GUNDILA HOUSE, P.O YETHADKA, KUMBADAJE VILLAGE AND PANCHAYAT, KASARGOD TALUK & DISTRICT – 670 511

¶17

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRITHVIRAJ SHASTRY, ADV. FOR SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV.)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.28(1) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.07.09.2017 PASSED ON MC NO.27/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR, D.K., ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13(1)(i)(i-a) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46272-DB MFA No. 506 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

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

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. When the matter was called out, learned counsel for the respondent was not present.

¶27

We have perused the record and the translations of the testimony that have been furnished by learned counsel for the appellant. The voluminous cross-examinations of PW.1, PW.2 and RW.1 have been perused. The memo enclosing the translations runs into more than 150 pages. After we had perused the translations, the brief holder of the learned counsel for the respondent appears and states that copy of the translations had not been received and the counsel is arguing in another Court. Since we have spent nearly 45 minutes for perusing the material and hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we decline to adjourn the matter and we have asked

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46272-DB MFA No. 506 of 2018

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

the learned counsel for the respondent to address us. He has expressed his inability stating that it is his senior who will argue the matter. Therefore, we proceed to consider the appeal on the basis of the material on record.

¶31

Various allegations have been made by the petitioner - respondent against the appellant, which were contradicted by the appellant in her statement of objection / written statement filed before the Family Court. Testimony of the PW.1, PW.2 and RW.1 were recorded, who underwent exhaustive cross-examinations. The PW.1 got documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and the RW.1 got documents marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R8. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent witness was also examined as RW.2.

¶32

We find from perusal of the judgment that after recording in detail the case of the petitioner - respondent and the appellant, the learned Family Court proceeds to discuss the same in an extremely brief manner, without there being any proper appreciation of the evidence. Thereafter, after referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court, he proceeds to allow the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46272-DB MFA No. 506 of 2018

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Hindu Marriage Act. We are of the opinion that such judgment cannot stand, as it is without proper appreciation of the evidence on record.

¶36

For the reason aforesaid, we allow this appeal and remand the matter back to the competent Family Court to take a decision afresh after proper consideration of the evidence. This appeal, accordingly stands disposed of.

¶37

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶38

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶39

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt. Shakeela v. Mr. Prakash Bhandary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shakeela v. Mr. Prakash Bhandary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S Satyanarayana Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Smt. C. Ugama Bai, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B Narayana Vs State of Karnataka

Kum. Vaishnavi Mali Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.C.Shivamurthy Vs Smt.B.v.Savithramma

V Manjunatha Vs Smt B Neetha