- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202173 OF 2025 (MC) BETWEEN: BHAVANI W/O DEVADATTA D/O DHARMARAJ, AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. STATION SAYEDAPURA (LAXMI NAGAR), TALUK AND DIST. YADGIRI-585 401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: DEVADATTA S/O LATE RAMSINGH, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: SDA, R/O. SASVIGERA VILLAGE, (CHINNANAYAK TANDA), TQ. DEVADURGA, DIST. RAICHUR-584 124. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 DATED 18.08.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVADURGA, IN M.C. NO.11/2019. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This appeal is filed by the wife, calling in question, the judgment and award dated 18.08.2023, in MC No.11/2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Devadurga, whereby, the application filed by the husband under Section 13 (1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was allowed thereby dissolving the marriage solemnized on 10.04.2017 between the appellant and respondent at Mantralaya. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court for easy reference. 3. The date of marriage and the relationship are not in dispute. The husband/petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 (1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 marriage dated 10.04.2017 solemnized at Mantralaya on the ground of cruelty. 4. A brief of outline of facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under; The petitioner/husband in the application has stated that the marriage is an arrange marriage. After the marriage, the respondent did not join him. Subsequently, on the request made to the parents of the respondent, the respondent joined the petitioner/husband, in the wedlock two children born to them. Thereafter, the respondent returned to her parental home and did not return to matrimonial home. Thereafter, all the efforts made by the petitioner to bring her back were in vain. Even after a lapse of two years, the respondent did not join the petitioner. The petitioner lost all hopes and went under depression. Whenever the petitioner made an attempt to visit the parental home of the respondent her parents did not allow him to stay with the respondent. Accordingly, he filed petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 5. Subsequent to the petition, though notice was issued but not served on the respondent and the petitioner /husband filed an application under under 5 Rule 20 of Civil - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 Procedure Code 1908, seeking for paper publication on the premise that the respondent deliberately avoiding the service of notice which came to be allowed and in view of paper publication, the notice of the petition was deemed to have been served on the respondent/wife, the trial Court taking the same on record, placed the respondent/wife ex-parte and proceeded with the trial. The trial court framed two points for consideration, wherein point No.1 - was whether the petitioner has made out grounds for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act as alleged. The trial Court answered the point No.1 ‘in affirmative’, in just two paragraphs i.e., at paragraphs Nos. 8 and 9 holding that the averments and allegations made by the PW.1 uncontroverted and undisputed by respondent/wife and believing the same, the Court was of the opinion that the acts of the respondent amounts to cruelty against the petitioner, and he having proved his case, entitled for a grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Accordingly, proceeded to pass the order allowing the application and dissolving the marriage declaring the marriage as dissolved. It is this order passed by the trial Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 is called in question by the respondent/wife, in the present appeal. 6. Heard Sri.Mahantesh.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Avinash.A.Uplaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. Sri.Mahantesh Patil with all vehemence submitted that the Tribunal passed a cryptic order dissolving the marriage solemnized at sacred place i.e., at Mantralaya. The list of the documents which were relied on by the petitioner/husband to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty are Exs.P.1 to P3 i.e., wedding invitation card, legal notice and acknowledgment. The petitioner/husband to prove his case got examined as PW.1 and two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. The way in which the entire case was conducted by the husband is very shocking. The petitioner/husband filed MC No.11/2019 before the trial Court. On 12.07.2019 the Court has issued notice on the respondent/wife, on 09.09.2019 the notice was returned unserved as ‘Party out of Station’, thereafter, the appropriate steps were ordered from 23.09.2019 to 23.01.2021. The matter was adjourned for steps and as per Standard Operating Procedure issued by this Court for COVID-19 pandemic. On - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 23.01.2021 the petitioner/husband submitted that the both petitioner and respondent i.e. husband and wife are residing together. Thereafter, from 19.02.2021 to 15.03.2022 the matter was adjourned for steps. On 15.02.2023 fresh steps were taken on the same address. On 30.05.2023 notice returned as party out of station. On 22.06.2023 an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC for substituted service of notice was filed and the same was allowed, whereby paper publication was taken in the daily news paper Sagarnadu. Thereafter, on 27.07.2023 the respondent/wife was placed ex- parte and evidence was taken and the matter was heard and posted for judgment on 18.08.2023. The entire process of service of notice on the appellant is against the law. The substitute service of notice published in the newspaper Sagarnadu is not a daily newspaper having wide circulation in the area where the respondent/wife resides. Therefore, there is no notice in terms of law and the respondent/wife was denied opportunity of hearing and there is violation of audi alteram partem as well as violation of principles of natural justice. The ex-parte divorce though was obtained on 18.08.2023, the same was not disclosed even in the pending proceedings i.e., - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 Criminal Miscellaneous No.960/2021 before the JMFC at Yadgiri. The respondent appeared and filed his objection, however, not stated about anything regarding the filing of the MC No.11/2019. The trial Court in the criminal miscellaneous petition passed an interim order to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/-, respondent/wife and daughter and son. The respondent preferred a criminal revision petition No.9/2025 before the District and Sessions Judge at Yadgiri, the same is pending consideration wherein an interim order was passed on the order of payment of maintenance. Even in the said proceeding, the respondent/husband has not stated anything regarding the filing of MC No.11/2019 so also the decree granted on 18.08.2023. The respondent/wife filed a criminal case against the husband for the cruelty with which she was treated, the said proceedings were challenged before this Court in Criminal Petition No.200653/2025, wherein, the husband has taken a specific contention that as there is a divorce granted by the Court in the year 2023 on the ground of cruelty, there cannot be any cruelty by the husband as such the proceedings are not maintainable. The wife for the first time noticed and gained knowledge regarding filing of MC No.11/2019 and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 decree of divorce dated 18.08.2023. Looking into the entire scenario, the husband in a discreet manner by playing fraud on the Court, got published notice by way of substituted service and obtained decree of divorce. The conduct of the husband in not disclosing the proceedings regarding the filing of application under the provisions of Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, before all the Courts clearly shows that he wanted to maintain the entire activities in a discreet manner so as to obtain a decree of divorce only with an intention to marry again. It is on record, that, on 10.04.2024 the husband married again, which he has been clearly admitted even before this Court through his counsel on 22.07.2025. All these circumstances clearly show that the decree of divorce is obtained behind the back, without knowledge and playing fraud on the Court. It is trite law that fraud and justice never dwell together. That apart, the way in which the trial Court handled the case, only on the premise that the evidence of petitioner husband as well as witnesses were undisputed and uncontroverted is appalling. It is trite law that a person who approaches the Court has to prove his case on his own grounds and not on the weakness of the other side. The documents - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 produced to substantiate the claim are wedding invitation card, legal notice and acknowledgement except is no other document placed before the Court in order to show the cruelty alleged against the wife. In these circumstances, the trial Court committed a serious error by a cryptic order reasoning the same only in two paragraphs dissolving a marriage which has taken place in a sacred place following all the customs as per the Hindu law. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and set aside the order and dismiss the petition. 8. Refuting the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.Avinash.A.Uplaonkar with all vehemence submitted that the husband filed petition and tried to serve notice on the respondent. It is a fact that the legal notice which was sent by R.P.A.D returned with a shara as ‘refused’, which clearly shows that the wife deliberately avoided the notice, even in the proceedings wife was deliberately avoiding notice no other alternative he has taken the notice through paper publication. The wife despite noticing the same has not participated in the proceedings, now cannot complain regarding the same. In these circumstances, the judgment and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 decree passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmities. 9. After appearance of the husband on 22.07.2025 the matter was adjourned to 22.07.2025 and at the request of both the counsel, the matter was referred to mediation and was ordered to be listed before the mediation center on 07.08.2025 thereafter to re-list on 18.08.2025. On 18.08.2025 the matter was listed before the Court both the counsels appeared and submitted that the mediation has failed and accordingly, both the counsels were directed to keep the respective parties present before the Court and to make submission on the next day of hearing and the matter was adjourned to 22.08.2025. On 22.08.2025, the respondent has not appeared in the morning session. However, appeared at 04.30 p.m. in the afternoon. The wife along with two children traveled from Yadgiri along with her brother and two kids was present before the Court. Taking into consideration of the said fact, the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- toward expenses of the appellant who came along with two kids and his brother and the matter was ordered to be listed on 23.08.2025. On 23.08.2025 again husband was directed to pay - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 Rs.5,000/- to the appellant towards expenses and on deliberation both have sought time to settle the matter and requested to adjourn the matter on 30.08.2025. On 30.08.2025 a direction was issued to the Registry to secure the entire trial Court records and since there was a delay in filing the appeal, the delay of 594 days in filing the appeal was condoned. At the request to settle the matter by paying permanent alimony to wife and security towards the children, matter was adjourned to 02.09.2025. On 02.09.2025 both the parties were present and requested the Court that both the parties are ready to live together, the wife who was present submitted that she is ready to go with the petitioner and live marital life, in the welfare of the two children. The husband accepted to take her back home and was directed not to cause any harm to the wife during her stay and take care of the children, the husband has also agreed to provide education to the children at the place of his work. Both the parties jointly submitted that the appeal be allowed and the order be set aside, in view of the settlement that both the parties decided to reside together, accordingly, the appeal is allowed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 10. For the aforesaid reasons, without deliberating on the allegations and counter allegations submitted by both the parties, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is set aside, instead of remanding the matter to the trial Court, in view of the settlement that both the parties have agreed and ready to reunite together. 11. Before departing from the case, we feel it is appropriate to record our disagreement, the way in which the trial Court has handled the matter. The trial Court by a cryptic order reasoning its entire reasons in two paragraphs, is paragraph Nos.8 and 9. However entire case decided in paragraph No.8 the paragraph No.9 is just an extension of paragraph No.8. Whenever any case of matrimonial dispute is presented before the Court, the Court under law is bound to consider the case on the merits, and in the absence of the other side the court is required to act with double caution, wherein the demand of fundamental tenet of justice. Reasoning being the normal course of filing defense cross examination and arguments are suspended. In the said situation a greater responsibility is shouldered on the court to ensure fairness and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 prevent any abuse of process of law as there are chances in single party hearing, exploitation of situation by an unscrupulous litigant by misrepresenting facts and evidence to secure favourable order. It is trite law that the party who approaches the Court has to prove its case on its own and not on the weakness on the other side. The trial Court in a cryptic order just in six lines in paragraph No.8 has concluded the entire case which we extract as under: “Be it stated, respondent has remained exparte. This being the case, the petition averments and averments of PW1 has remained undisputed and uncontroverted by the respondent. As such, I am of the view that there is no impediment to believe the case of the petitioner that the respondent is not joining his company”. 12. The documents which were produced are wedding card, legal notice and acknowledgment. There is no other document produced by the petitioner/husband to prove the allegations of cruelty. The dissolution of marriage is just like putting an end to the marital tie. There are several judgments - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court on conducting the matrimonial cases. The Trial Court without assigning any reasons only on the self-serving statements of the husband as well as his witnesses, accepted the entire case as a gospel truth and proceeded to allow the petition dissolving the marriage in 2023, in a petition filed in 2019 i.e., within two years from the date of marriage. There is no oral or documentary evidence produced to substantiate the allegations to prove cruelty as required under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and by catena of judgments of this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court. In these circumstances, we direct the Registry to send copy of this order to the concerned Presiding Officer wherever he is to avoid these kinds of judgments in future, which have got destructive consequences on the social fabric of family life, fortunately both the parties have come forward to reunite their married life. Considering the circumstances, without much deliberation we are just forwarding the order to the concerned Judicial Officer to correct himself in future. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed, setting-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5752-DB MFA No. 202173 of 2025 court. Since the parties have agreed and ready to reunion, the question of remanding the matter to the trial court does not arise. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 CT: AK