Mrs Poulomi Mukherjee Vs Mr Arup Majumder

ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE II KARNATAKA - 560 100., ALSO R/AT BREN PALMS, F-404, 48-1 KUDLU MAIN ROAD, KUDLU GATE, BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 068.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. H.V. SHYAM SUNDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

AND:

¶18

MR. ARUP MAJUMDER

¶19

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O. MR. ASIT MAJUMDER R/AT BREN PALMS, F-404 48-1, KUDLU MAIN ROAD KUDLU GATE, BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 068.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. M.V. ANUPAMA, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.04.2022 PASSED IN MC NO.4825/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(i-a) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶23

2 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:50829-DB MFA No. 5638 of 2022

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

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

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

This appeal has been filed by the respondent-wife seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2022 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bengaluru¹ in M.C.No.4825/2021.

¶32

The case of the appellant, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, is that the parties reside in the same apartment at Bommanahalli in Bengaluru and both have filed cases against each other. The aforesaid M.C.No.4825/2021 was filed by the petitioner-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955² . The respondent-wife having come to know of the same, confronted the petitioner-husband, who said that the matter may be resolved and he would withdraw

¶33

1 Family Court

¶34

2 HM Act

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50829-DB MFA No. 5638 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

the aforesaid matrimonial case and she need not pursue the same. It is stated that acting on the assurance of the husband, the wife did not appear before the Family Court, despite receipt of summons. An issue with regard to jurisdiction has also been raised.

¶38

On perusal of the order sheet of the Family Court, It appears that notice was issued on the main petition on 21.09.2021 that is, a day after filing of the aforesaid matrimonial case. On 09.12.2021, the petitioner's counsel was present, but the respondent was absent. However, on that very day holding that the service was sufficient, the respondent was placed ex - parte and for the petitioner's evidence, the case was directed to be listed on 20.01.2022. On 20.01.2022, the case

¶39

was adjourned in view of the S.O.P. issued by the High Court of Karnataka on 14.01.2022. On 09.03.2022, adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner. On 08.04.2022, the petitioner's counsel was present. The petitioner was present who filed his affidavit evidence and was examined as PW.1 and

¶40

got marked Exhibits P1 and P2. He thereafter closed his evidence. The Family Court, noting that the respondent has

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:50829-DB MFA No. 5638 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

already been placed ex - parte , proceeded to hear arguments by the petitioners' counsel and the matter was reserved for judgment. On 18.04.2022, the judgment was delivered and decree was directed to be drawn.

¶45

We have perused the impugned judgment and decree. We find that the Family Court has based its judgment solely on the examination-in-chief of PW1 and without analyzing the quality of the evidence submitted by the PW1, as there is no discussion of the same. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife has raised a plea on the ground of maintainability of the petition under the HM Act.

¶46

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

¶47

decree under challenge cannot stand and therefore the aforesaid judgment and decree of 18.04.2022 is set aside.

¶48

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the appropriate Family Court for taking a decision afresh after recording evidence of the parties.

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50829-DB MFA No. 5638 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The parties are directed to appear before the Family

¶52

Court on 15.12.2025. If on that day, the Court is closed due to any reason, the parties shall appear on the next working day.

¶53

It shall be open for the parties to raise such contentions before the Family Court, as they may be advised.

¶54

A request has been made by learned counsel for the respondent that a direction be issued to the Family Court for early disposal of the appeal. However, at this stage, we are not inclined to issue any such direction.

¶55

Let the Family Court records be sent back to the Family Court concerned within a week.

¶56

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶57

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶58

DDU

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Mrs Poulomi Mukherjee v. Mr Arup Majumder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Poulomi Mukherjee v. Mr Arup Majumder

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 Rudramurthy H B Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Namita Samantara Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Pmla)

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri. S. Venkata Reddy

Smt Rupa Vs Sri v Manjunath

Mrs. Neha Naveenchandra Vs Mr. Sandeep Padubidri

Smt. a B Baby Vs Sri K P Narasimha Murthy