- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17610-DB MFA No.7724/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7724/2024 (MC) BETWEEN: SMT.MEENA BAI.K W/O SACHIN A, D/O S.H.KRISHNOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, C/O SRINIVASA, R/AT ANANDA NILAYA, (MAYANNA NILAYA), BEHIND TALUK OFFICE, DUM LIGHT CIRCLE, MAGADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI H V RAMACHANDRA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.SACHIN A S/O A.ASHOK PATIL, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.5, GUGGARAHATTI, NEAR AKKAM BHAVI, BELLARY -583 101 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.B.HALLI, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.10.2024 PASSED IN MC NO.34/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17610-DB MFA No.7724/2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) This appeal is preferred challenging the rejection of petition of the appellant under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the petition was presented within one year from the date of her marriage with the respondent. 2. In this appeal the above interim application is filed under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act to dispense with the period of one year. 3. Sri H.V. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent luring the appellant who was hardly aged about 20 years on Facebook impersonating himself to be one Anil befriended her and managed to take her to Bellary. By the time, the appellant realized the fraud played on her, under coercion he married her and subjected her to cruelty. 4. He further submits that the petition was filed in the year 2020 and disposed of in the year 2024 and even this - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17610-DB MFA No.7724/2024 appeal is pending since one year, by this time about five years have been elapsed, the appellant is subjected to great hardship in this proceedings. Therefore, the application be allowed and period of one year be dispensed with. 5. Sri S.B. Halli, learned counsel for the respondent relying on the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Sharma H. Kasinath vs. Smt. Shoba1, submits that Section 14 can be invoked only if there are rules formulated by this Court to provide such dispensation. Since no rules are framed, Section 14 cannot be invoked. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, to press into service his submission relies on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Rajasi @ Swapna W/o Shashank Dandge vs. Shashank S/o Vittalrao Dandge2. 7. Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bars the Courts from entertaining the petition for dissolution of marriage unless at the date of presentation of petition one year has elapsed. No doubt the proviso to the said Section provides for dispensing with the period of one year, if the applicant shows that waiting for the said period causes exceptional 1 AIR 2010 KAR 168 2 2015 SCC Online Bom 2929 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17610-DB MFA No.7724/2024 hardship to the petitioner. However, the proviso can be invoked only if the High Court has made rules in that regard for making application for dispensation and dispensing the matter. 8. The attempt is made to contend that the period of one year prescribed under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is only directory, not mandatory. In this regard the coordinate Bench of this Court in Shobha’s case referred to supra has held as follows: “10. The opening sentence in the section which begins with a non obstante clause leaves us with no doubt that section 14 of the Act should prevail and the settled principle of interpretation of statutes being that Courts should adopt a plain and literary understanding of the statute and not to resort to interpretation either to nullify the intention of the legislature or to rewrite the statutory provision, with respect to the other High Courts which have taken a contrary view, we disagree with such views, hold that the legislative intent in the section cannot be avoided by resort to a process of interpretation to hold the section to be merely a directory provision, but on the other hand are of the view that it is only a mandatory provision and the intention and object of the legislation should be respected.” (Emphasis supplied) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17610-DB MFA No.7724/2024 9. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court that Section 14 has a non-obstante clause and that cannot be interpreted to nullify the intention of the legislature, we are not persuaded to accept the same to be a directory one. In view of the judgment of our own High Court and the judgment of other High Courts relied upon cannot be followed. Therefore, the application is rejected. Admittedly the petition was filed within one year from the date of marriage, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the petition. 10. Therefore, the application and appeal are dismissed, reserving liberty to the appellant to file appropriate petition before the Trial Court. All contentions of the parties are left open. Place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for framing necessary rules under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE MR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35