Dismissed¶39

Sri.Arun Kumar v. Smt.Ashwini

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026MFA/2248/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restitution of conjugal rights refused for want of proof of valid marriage; Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act 1955; Section 19(1) Family Courts Act 1984 appeal; MFA No. 2248 of 2026 (FC); M.C.No.342/2023, Family Court Davanagere; only a few photographs, no documentary or oral evidence of marriage solemnized per Hindu Marriage Act ceremonies; appellant cannot be husband; no S. 9 order possible; appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

To claim relief for restitution of conjugal rights, the parties should establish the relationship of husband and wife; if the parties fail to establish a valid marriage, no order or relief can be granted under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. ¶31

Sri.Arun Kumar Vs Smt.Ashwini — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28095-DB MFA No. 2248 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2248 OF 2026 (FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.ARUN KUMAR S/O VEERESH AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS WORKING ON CONTRACT BASIS IN BESCOM DAVANAGERE R/A HONNURUGOLLAHLATTIL VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK DISTRICT NOW R/A NO 220/K V, SRS COLONY, HADADI ROAD, BAPUJI VIDYANAGAR DAVANAGERE

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT.ASHWINI

¶15

W/O ARUNKUMAR, D/O KEDARMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS GARMENTS WORK R/O OPPOSITE VEERESH MEEDICAL SHOP KUKKAWADA VILLAGE, DAVANAFGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.12.2025 PASSED IN MC NO. 342/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28095-DB MFA No. 2248 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

FAMILY COURT, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶25

The present appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of

¶26

the Family Courts Act, 1984 impugning the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2025 passed by the Family Court, Davanagere in M.C.No.342/2023.

¶27

The appellant claim to be the husband of the respondent. He filed the aforesaid M.C.No.342/2023 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court on examination of the evidence has come to a conclusion that there is no proof to establish valid marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Except for a few photographs, no evidence either documentary or oral was produced by the appellant to prove that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28095-DB MFA No. 2248 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

was solemnized as per the ceremonies mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act. As the appellant failed to prove the valid marriage between him and the respondent, the Family Court has dismissed the M.C.No.342/2023.

¶31

To claim relief for restitution of conjugal rights, the parties should establish the relationship of husband and wife. If the parties fail to establish one of the valid marriage, no order/relief can be granted under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It would be apt to take note of Section 9 of the Act, which reads as under:

¶32

"9. Restitution of conjugal Rights:- When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.

¶33

Explanation:-—Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:28095-DB MFA No. 2248 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society .

¶38

As the appellant has failed to prove the valid

¶39

marriage, he cannot be the husband of the respondent and therefore, there is no question of granting an order under Section 9 of the Act. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶40

In view dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for

¶41

consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of.

¶42

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶43

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶44

RKA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Sri.Arun Kumar v. Smt.Ashwini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Arun Kumar v. Smt.Ashwini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Board Memebers Vs M K Lingaraju

The Chief Executive Officer and Secretary Vs Sri C Goutham Kumar

Smt Prema T P Vs Sri Nagesh H B

Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyappa K Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Mahadevappa Vs State of Karnataka