- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49836-DB MFA No. 5310 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5311 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 5310 OF 2018 (FC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 5311 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SRI KARTHIK PANDU, S/O SRI PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, No.28, EAST ANAJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT No.17, 2ND FLOOR, BULLET KRISHNAPPA ROAD, BADRAPPA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560094. …APPELLANT (COMMON) (BY SRI S. M. BABU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RENUGA DEVI BALAJI, W/O SRI KARTHIK PANDU, D/O SRI BALAJI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, No.11/12, KOSAMADA STREET, THIRUMANAMALI-606601, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49836-DB MFA No. 5310 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5311 of 2018 TAMIL NADU, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT No.364, 5TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, B.T.M. II STAGE, BANGALORE-560076. …RESPONDENT(COMMON) (BY SRI K. N. DAYALU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPEALS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04/04/2018, PASSED IN M.C.No.3482/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR 'HEARING', THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) In MFA No.5310/2018: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2018 passed in M.C. No.3482/2011 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the petition for divorce filed by the appellant has been - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49836-DB MFA No. 5310 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5311 of 2018 dismissed. Moreover, by the very same order, the counter claim filed by the respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights is allowed. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent-wife was taken by the mother of the appellant to the Doctor, who had certified that the marriage had not been consummated. However, he has not been able to show any evidence to demonstrate that there was any such prescription exhibited which reflected that the marriage had not been consummated. Further, as per the own saying of the counsel for the appellant, the concerned Doctor was not examined by the appellant. We have noted the findings of the Family Court and find that they have been passed after taking into account the evidence, which clearly reflect that the respondent has been always ready and willing to participate and share marital life with the appellant but for certain inexplicable reasons, it is the appellant who has been indifferent. As a matter of fact, the cross-examination of the appellant reflects that he had lodged a complaint against his own father at Basavanagudi Police Station. It is stated that he had left his parents' house but he did not invite his wife to join - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49836-DB MFA No. 5310 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5311 of 2018 him when he was leaving his parents' house. Though it has been stated in the cross-examination of PW.1 that the respondent indulged in character assassination regarding his 'maleness' however, no panchayathdhar who had attended the panchayath was examined by PW.1. 4. Various e-mails have been exhibited as Exs.P5, P6, P7, P8, P9 and P10, which reflect that the respondent was imploring the appellant to resume the marital life but evidently, the appellant did not. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. In MFA No.5311/2018: In view of the order passed in the connected MFA No.5310/2018, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27