- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5513-DB MFA No. 100690 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100690 OF 2024 (MC) BETWEEN: MEGHANA W/O. SAIKIRAN ACHARI, A/A. 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TELANGAR, TAL. YELLAPUR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581359. …APPELLANT (BY SRI A.P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE AND SRI VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATE) AND: SAIKIRAN RAMESH ACHARI, A/A. 30 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT, R/O. BASAVESHWAR BADAVANE, NEAR RTO OFFICE, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581359. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GIRISH YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE INSTANT APPEAL AND THUS SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.11.2023, PASSED IN MATRIMONIAL CASE NO.94/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIRSI, AND DISMISS THE ORIGINAL PETITION AND ETC., THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5513-DB MFA No. 100690 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The above appeal is filed by the appellant/wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551, challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2023, passed in M.C.No.94/2023, by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi2. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their status in the their relationship, for the sake of convenience. 3. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.04.2022, consequent to which, they lived together in their marital home for 15 days. Due to various reasons, the parties started living separately. The respondent/husband filed M.C.No.94/2023 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the H.M. Act seeking for divorce. The notice of the said proceedings was served on the appellant/wife. However, she remained absent and was placed ex-parte before the Trial Court. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘H.M. Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5513-DB MFA No. 100690 of 2024 4. The husband examined himself as PW.1 and an other witness was examined as PW.2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked in evidence. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 02.11.2023, allowed the petition filed by the husband and dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. 5. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri. A.P. Hegde and Sri. Vijay Meleli for the appellant/wife and learned counsel Sri.Girish Yadawad for the respondent/husband. 6. It is the contention of the appellant/wife that she did not have an opportunity to contest the proceedings before the Trial Court, since she was unable to enter appearance in the said proceedings. It is further contended that the Trial Court without adequately considering the nature of allegations made by the husband and appreciating the material on record with regard to the same, has mechanically allowed the petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband contends that admittedly the notice of the proceedings before the Trial Court was served on the wife and she did not contested the proceedings before the Trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5513-DB MFA No. 100690 of 2024 That the allegations made by the husband having remained un-contraverted, the decree passed by the Trial Court is just and proper. 8. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record have been perused. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with? 9. The relationship between the parties and the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court is undisputed. It is further undisputed that the wife did not contest the proceedings before the trial Court, since she was placed ex-parte. It is the contention of the wife that she was receiving various notices from various Courts and she was in mental stress and agony. Hence, she remained ex-parte. 10. It is pertinent to note that the proceedings initiated by the husband before the Trial Court being one for divorce and valuable rights of parties having been adjudicated before the Trial Court, without the wife having had an opportunity to contest the allegations made against her, in the interest of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5513-DB MFA No. 100690 of 2024 justice, it is just and proper that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court be set aside and the wife be afforded an opportunity to contest the proceedings on certain terms. 11. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is partly allowed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 02.11.2023 passed in M.C.No.94/2023 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi is set aside. iii) The parties shall appear before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi on 22.04.2025 without requirement of any further notice being issued in this regard. iv) On the date of appearance, the appellant/wife shall file her statement of objections to M.C.No.94/2023. v) The Trial Court shall conduct further proceedings in accordance with law by giving - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5513-DB MFA No. 100690 of 2024 an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence. vi) The Trial Court shall adjudicate upon M.C.No.94/2023 as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22