K.R. Prasanna Vs Smt. Kalamma

K.R.PRASANNA S/O RANGAPPAKADAGANUR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS C/O RANGAPPA R/AT QUARTERS NO.A-3 A.P.M.C.QUARTERS NEAR FIRE ENGINE OFFICE DAVANAGERE – 577 002 …APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI NATARAJA B S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT.KALAMMA D/O MANIGAR KOTRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT TALAVAGALU VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK BELLARI DISTRICT …RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY DR.S.V.GIRIKUMAR FOR SRI RAVINDRA H T, ADVOCATES)

¶15

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.05.2023 PASSED BY THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAVANAGERE IN M.C.NO.241/2020 DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

¶16

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

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB MFA No.5111/2023

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶22

Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of both side, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

Challenging dismissal of his petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short), the petitioner in M.C.No.241/2020 on the file of Family Court, Davanagere has preferred this appeal.

¶24

Appellant and the respondent were the petitioner and the respondent respectively in M.C.No.241/2020 before the Trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Trial Court.

¶25

The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 26.04.2020 in the house of the respondent situated in Harapanahalli which was then in Ballari District.

¶26

Petitioner filed M.C.No.241/2020 before the Family Court, Davanagere under Section 12 of the Act seeking declaration that the marriage of himself and the respondent solemnized on 26.04.2020 was outcome of coercion and fraud,

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB MFA No.5111/2023

¶29

therefore the marriage is null and void. He claimed that though he had not accepted the proposal of respondent and her family to get her married, on 23.04.2020 her parents and relatives

¶30

secured him to her parental house threatening him that if he does not go, the respondent will commit suicide. On 25.04.2020, they threatened him that if he does not marry her, he will be killed. They detained him in the house. They had made preparation for marriage and on next day i.e. on 26.04.2020 they forcefully performed some rituals, made him to tie mangala sutra around the neck of the respondent. He further alleged that despite he filing police complaint, under the influence of the respondent and her family members, the police did not register the case against her. The marriage was also not consummated. Thus he sought declaration that marriage is null and void.

¶31

Respondent contested the petition denying the allegations of fraud and coercion. She contended that the marriage of herself and the petitioner took place on their own volition. The petitioner was working as Goods Guard at Chikkajajuru Railway junction. She denied the allegations that

¶32

the presence of the petitioner was secured under threat of she committing suicide and the marriage was performed under

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB MFA No.5111/2023

¶35

criminal intimidation. She contended that herself and the petitioner were in touch with each other even before the marriage, by their consent their marriage was performed and the marriage was consummated. It was further alleged that at the time of marriage, gold jewellary and cash was given as dowry and after marriage, the petitioner and his parents themselves became abusers and forced her to file the complaint before Halavagalu police station. Thus she sought dismissal of the petition.

¶36

The parties adduced evidence. The Trial Court on

¶37

hearing the parties formulated the following points for consideration:

¶38

(i) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent by threatening and playing fraud has made him to tie Mangalasutra to her neck on 26.04.2020 and as such it is not a valid marriage?

¶39

(ii) Whether the respondent proves that as per Hindu customs, she has married the petitioner and it is a valid marriage?

¶40

(iii) Whether this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try the petition?

¶41

(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for?

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB MFA No.5111/2023

¶44

(v) What Order?

¶45

The Trial Court without considering the merits of the case, took up the issue of territorial jurisdiction for consideration. Relying on the evidence of the petitioner and his witness, the Trial Court held that the marriage was solemnized in Harapanahalli. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent were the resident of Davanagere District. Therefore the said Court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and dismissed the petition. Said judgment is challenged in the above appeal.

¶46

Sri Nataraja B.S., learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of filing of the petition, the petitioner was residing in railway quarters situated in Davanagere city, therefore the Trial Court had territorial jurisdiction. Referring to Section 19 (iv) of the Act, he submits that any petition under the Act can be filed where the petitioner resides at the time of presentation of the petition. Therefore the impugned judgment and order is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

¶47

Dr.S.V.Girikumar, learned Counsel and

¶48

Sri Ravindra H.T, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that Section 19 (iv) of the Act is not applicable. He submits that

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB MFA No.5111/2023

¶51

admittedly, marriage took place in Harapanahalli, the respondent/wife was residing in Harapanahalli. The contention that the petitioner was residing in Davanagere was also not proved. He submits that Section 19 (iv) of the Act is applicable only if other conditions mentioned in the said provision are satisfied. But they were not satisfied in this case. Therefore the Trial Court was justified in holding that it has no territorial jurisdiction.

¶52

Considering the submissions of both side and on examining the materials on record, the question that arises for determination is “ Whether the impugned judgment and order is sustainable in law?”

¶53

Analysis

¶54

The petitioner himself in his petition admitted that the marriage took place in Harapanahalli and the respondent is the resident of Harapanahalli town. Section 19 of the Act which stipulates jurisdiction of the Court for adjudication of any petition under the Act reads as follows:

¶55

“19. Court to which petition shall be presented.- Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction-

¶56

(i) the marriage was solemnised, or

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB MFA No.5111/2023

¶59

(ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or

¶60

(iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or

¶61

(iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner , where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition, or

¶62

(iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive.”

¶63

Petitioner is relying on Clause iv of Section 19 of

¶64

the Act. Reading of the above provision shows that said provision permits a person to file the petition in place where he resides, only if either of two following conditions are satisfied, namely when the petition was filed, the respondent should be residing in the place outside the territories in which this Act extends or she should not have been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years.

¶65

In this case, it is nobody’s case that the Act does

¶66

not extend to Harapanahalli where the respondent is residing. It is not the contention of the petitioner that when the petition

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB MFA No.5111/2023

¶69

was filed the respondent was not heard of. Therefore he cannot press into service Section 19 (iv) of the Act to contend that the petition was rightly instituted before the Trial Court i.e. Family Court, Davanagere.

¶70

The next question is on the Trial Court finding that it had no territorial jurisdiction, whether it could dismiss the petition. Section 10(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 states that subject to the provisions of the said Act and Rules, provisions of CPC shall apply to the suits or the proceedings filed before the Family Court. Therefore in the present case, CPC was applicable. In case, if a case is filed before the Court having no territorial jurisdiction, what shall be done is prescribed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. It states that, if the Court finds that the suit is filed before the Court which had no territorial jurisdiction, then it should return the plaint for presenting before the proper Court. Therefore the Trial Court should have returned the petition for presentation before the proper Court instead of dismissing the same. Hence the appeal deserves to be allowed in part modifying the impugned order to that extent. Hence the following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

The appeal is partly allowed.

¶73

9 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB MFA No.5111/2023

¶75

The finding of the Trial Court that it had no territorial jurisdiction is confirmed. The order of dismissal of the petition is hereby set aside.

¶76

The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for return of the plaint for presentation before the proper Court.

¶77

To avoid further delay, the parties are hereby directed to appear before the Trial Court without fail on 10.02.2025 without any further notice. If they fail to appear before the Trial Court, consequences shall follow.

¶78

On such appearance of the parties, the Trial Court shall return the plaint for presentation before the proper Court with direction to the parties to appear before such transferee Court on a particular date.

¶79

Communicate copy of this order to the Trial Court forthwith.

¶80

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶81

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶82

KSR

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

K.R. Prasanna v. Smt. Kalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R. Prasanna v. Smt. Kalamma

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

Sriram General Insurance Com Ltd. Vs Mrs Lethipa

M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. R Lakshmi

Smt. S.L. Geetha Vs Sri J. Ramesh

Yashodamma Vs Basavaraja

Mr. Sumantha K S Vs Mrs. Shruthi P