Dismissed¶¶45

Mrs Maria Juliet Baretto v. Mr Rudolf Micheal D'Souza

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2026MFA/6684/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench dismisses MFA No. 6684 of 2015 (IDA) filed under S. 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 against judgment and decree dated 28.1.2015 in M.C No.38/2009 (Principal Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Bantwal, D.K.) allowing a petition under Section 10(vii)(x) of the Divorce Act; dismissal founded on appellant's non-compliance (translated copies not attested) after failed mediation reference of 11.12.2025; no issues adjudicated on merits; no precedent cited; neutral citation NC: 2026:KHC:14895-DB.

What did the court decide?

The appellant had not complied with the order of the Court and further sought a pass over. ¶¶43

Mrs Maria Juliet Baretto Vs Mr Rudolf Micheal D'Souza — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14895-DB MFA No. 6684 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6684 OF 2015 (IDA)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MRS. MARIA JULIET BARETTO D/O LATE MICHEAL BARETTO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT 'MAYADI HOUSE', MEREMAJAL POST, VIA FARANGIPET, BANTAWAL-574 187.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

MR. RUDOLF MICHEAL D'SOUZA S/O LATE PASCAL D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O MASTER MAHAL MEREMAJAL, NEAR OMZOOR CHURCH, BANTWAL-574 187.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. VISHNUMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:14895-DB MFA No. 6684 of 2015

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 55 OF INDIAN DIVORCE ACT, 1869 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.1.2015 PASSED IN M.C NO.38/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, BANTWAL, D.K, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 10(vii)(x) OF DIVORCE ACT.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

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

¶27

When the matter was last listed on 19.02.2026, the

¶28

following order was passed:

¶29

"1. Repeated adjournments were sought by the learned counsel for the appellant for filing of translated copies of documents. Thereafter on 11.12.2025, the learned counsel for the parties jointly requested that the matter be referred for

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:14895-DB MFA No. 6684 of 2015

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

mediation. The matter was accordingly referred to mediation. Today, the learned counsel for the appellant states that the parties have not settled in mediation and seeks an adjournment.

¶34

2. The office report reflects that translated copies have been filed by learned counsel for the appellant but the translated copies have not been attested.

¶35

3. Therefore, list the appeal on 12.03.2026 for dismissal.

¶36

4. It shall be open for the learned counsel for the appellant to attest the translated copies prior to the next date of listing."

¶37