- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB MFA No. 203859 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.203859 OF 2024 (FC) BETWEEN: ANURADHA W/O SIDRAM KUSUR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O: C/O ANNARAYA H. NANDARGI AT POST BARAGI (HOSUE AT LAND) TQ. JATH, DIST. SANGLI MAHARASHTRA …APPELLANT . (BY SMT. RAJESHWARI JAMADAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. HEMA L. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: SIDRAM S/O KALLAPPA KUSAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE R/O: GIRIMALLESHWAR NAGAR, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB MFA No. 203859 of 2024 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.04.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT VIJAYAPURA, IN M.C.NO.245/2023. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) This appeal is filed by the appellant – wife under Section (19) (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by challenging the decree of divorce granted by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, at Vijayapura in M.C.No.245/2023 dated 22.04.2024. 02. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and perused the records. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB MFA No. 203859 of 2024 03. The case of the appellant – wife is that the respondent – husband has filed a divorce petition in M.C.No.245/2023 and a notice has been issued to the appellant – wife which was returned as address is not correct. The another notice was said to be sent, which was returned as refused. Hence, she has placed ex-parte. Accordingly, the ex-parte divorce decree has been passed. 04. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant – wife that there was no opportunity was provided properly. The previous case in M.C.No.163/2022, there was a joint memo was filed by the parties. The respondent – husband took the appellant – wife to his home and she has stayed only for 15 days. Thereafter, once again the appellant – wife has deserted the company of the respondent – husband. Therefore, without providing an opportunity, the divorce was granted, she will put to hardship and loss and great injustice will cause to the appellant – wife. Hence, prayed for setting aside the order of the Family Court and provide an opportunity to contest the matter. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB MFA No. 203859 of 2024 05. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent – husband appeared and contended that the notice has been served on the appellant - wife. She has refused to receive the said notice. Therefore, the ex-parte divorce decree was passed. Therefore, an opportunity has been already given to her and no need to interfere in the order of the Family Court. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal. 06. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, the point that would arise for our consideration is as under:- Whether the order under challenge call for any interference.? 07. On perusal of the records, it is not disputed that previously the parties have approached before the Family Court in M.C.No.163/2022 for restitution of conjugal rights. A joint memo has been filed and both of them have resided together for 15 days. Thereafter, once again the appellant – wife has deserted the company of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB MFA No. 203859 of 2024 respondent – husband. Subsequently, the respondent – husband has filed a divorce petition by showing the given address. It is seen from the records that twice time the notice has been returned as address is incorrect. On 3rd time the notice was taken by the appellant – wife, which was returned as refused. 08. The learned counsel for the appellant – wife contended that when the address itself is insufficient, twice it was returned, the question of refusing the notice by the appellant – wife does not arises. Therefore, an opportunity should be given to the appellant – wife for contesting the matter. 09. It is not in dispute that the relationship between the appellant and respondent as wife and husband. On the previous occasion the respondent – husband has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which was settled between the parties. Such being the case, the divorce granted by the Family Court, merely on the ground that the appellant – wife was placed ex-parte, is not proper and without giving an opportunity to the appellant – wife to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB MFA No. 203859 of 2024 contest the case, since there is already reunion between them and they were resided for 15 days, thereafter both of them separated. Without giving an opportunity to the appellant – wife, the ex-parte decree of divorce definitely cause injustice to the appellant – wife. Therefore, we feel it proper to remand the matter for considering afresh by giving an opportunity to the appellant – wife. Accordingly, the following; O R D E R I. The appeal is allowed. II. The impugned judgment in M.C.No.245/2023 dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, at Vijayapura, is hereby set-aside. III. The case in remitted to the Prl. Judge, Family Court, at Vijayapura. IV. The Prl. Judge, Family Court, at Vijayapura is hereby directed to consider the matter fresh by giving an opportunity to the appellant – wife by filing statement of objections and providing any evidence in her side. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB MFA No. 203859 of 2024 V. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Prl. Judge, Family Court, at Vijayapura, is directed to dispose of the matter within 06 months from the date of appearance of both the parties in the Prl. Judge, Family Court, at Vijayapura. VI. Both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the Prl. Judge, Family Court, at Vijayapura without any further notice by 03.04.2025. The office is directed to send the copy of this judgment along with Trial Court records forthwith. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, the pending I.As. do not survive for consideration, hence, the same are also disposed of. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT:SI