Dismissed

Shashikala v. S N Anand

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2026MFA.CROB/28/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a miscellaneous first appeal challenging the Family Court's grant of permanent alimony in a nullity decree. It also rejected the cross-objection that alimony claims should be exempt from court fees, ruling that quantified monetary relief attracts fees. Appeal and cross-objection dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Interference with the Family Court's order of permanent alimony refused; cross-objection on court fee matter dismissed; no order as to costs.

Shashikala Vs S N Anand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26490-DB MFA No. 4961 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4961 OF 2019 (FC)

¶9

C/W

¶10

MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 28 OF 2020

¶11

IN MFA No. 4961/2019

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI S N ANAND S/O.LATE NAGARAJU S, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.735/B, FIRST FLOOR, 23RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU-57001.

¶14

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT SHASHIKALA CONTENDED AS ESTRANGED, W/O.S.N.ANAND, D/O.NONAYYA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT.NO.36, "A" BLOCK, VIDYANAGARA III STAGE, MYSURU-570001.

¶19

…APPELLANT

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. A M VIJAY., ADVOCATE)

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26490-DB MFA No. 4961 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2020

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FC ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.169/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S 11 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶25

IN MFA.CROB NO. 28/2020

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SHASHIKALA D/O.NONAYYA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT.NO.36, A BLOCK, VIDYANAGARA III STAGE, MYSURU-570001.

¶28

...CROSS OBJECTOR

¶29

(BY SRI. VIJAY A M., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

S N ANAND S/O.LATE NAGARAJU S, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.735/B, FIRST FLOOR, 23RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU-570001.

¶32

...RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI. M R PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.4961/2019 FILED U/O 41 RULE 22 R/W SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2019 PASSED IN MC NO. 169/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRL. FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:26490-DB MFA No. 4961 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2020

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

THIS MFA ALONG WITH MFA CROB., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

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

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

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

¶42

MFA No.4961/2019 has been filed under Section 19(1) of

¶43

the Family Courts Act impugning the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2019 passed by the II Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in M.C.No.169/2018

¶44

The respondent-wife had filed the said petition seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized between her and the appellant-husband as null and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act and for damages/compensation/alimony of Rs.20,00,000/- from the appellant who was the respondent before the Family Court.

¶45

On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence the Family Court framed the following issues:

¶46

"i. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has married her during the subsistence of his marriage with one Padmavathi and therefore the same is hit by the provisions of Sec.5 and 7 of

¶47

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26490-DB MFA No. 4961 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2020

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the Hindu Marriage Act entitling her to a decree of nullity u/s11 of the Hindu Marriage Act?

¶50

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for damages/compensation/alimony from the respondent?

¶51

iii. What order or decree?"

¶52

Vide the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court held that the appellant had married the respondent during the subsistence of his earlier marriage with one Padmavathi and, therefore, the marriage between the parties was null and void, as it was in contravention of Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶53

The Family Court also noted that the respondent was aged about 35 years and had been awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month and house rent of Rs.6,000/- per month vide order dated 23.07.2018 passed in C.Misc.No.508/2016. Taking into consideration the escalating cost of living, the income and the property owned by the appellant and the future needs of the respondent-wife, the Family Court awarded permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/-.

¶54

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26490-DB MFA No. 4961 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2020

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

We have carefully perused the impugned judgment

¶57

and find no ground to interfere with the award of permanent alimony in favour of the respondent-wife. The appellanthusband has not challenged the finding of the Family Court declaring the marriage as null and void and has confined the challenge only to the grant of permanent alimony. The Family Court has duly considered the income and properties of the appellant while determining the quantum of permanent alimony. In our considered view, the amount of Rs.15,00,000/awarded as permanent alimony cannot be said to be either exorbitant or unreasonable so as to warrant an interference in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶58

Insofar as the cross-objection in MFA.CROB No.28/2020 is concerned, the contention of the cross-objector (wife) is that the Family Court ought not to have directed for payment of ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed towards permanent alimony/damages, as the said relief was only ancillary to the main relief sought in the petition.

¶59

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26490-DB MFA No. 4961 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2020

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

We are unable to accept the said contention.

¶62

Though the prayer for declaration of the marriage as null and void constituted the main relief in the matrimonial petition, the claim for permanent alimony/damages amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- was a distinct and quantified monetary claim. Once a specific monetary relief is sought and a definite amount is claimed, the liability to pay Court fee has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, irrespective of the fact that such claim is coupled with a matrimonial relief.

¶63

Merely because the claim for permanent alimony is sought in a matrimonial proceeding, it does not cease to be a substantive monetary relief. The Family Court, therefore, cannot be faulted with for insisting upon payment of Court fee on the quantified amount claimed. The cross-objector has not demonstrated any statutory provision exempting such claim from payment of Court fee or establishing that the Court fee collected was contrary to law. In the absence of any statutory exemption, a quantified claim for permanent alimony/damages cannot be excluded from the levy of Court fee.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:26490-DB MFA No. 4961 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2020

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Accordingly, we find no merit in the cross-objection.

¶68

The same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly

¶69

dismissed .

¶70

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶71

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶72

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Shashikala v. S N Anand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikala v. S N Anand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. K.M. Mallesh Vs the Assistant Director of

Manjunatha P J Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt Sudha Vs the Tahsildar

Shri T.K. Rajan Vs M/S. Karnataka Road Development Corporation

Ramakrishna Gardens Residents Welfare Association (Rgrwa) Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. Chandrashekar Gowda R Vs the Additional Secretary