- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42504-DB MFA No. 5726 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5726 OF 2018 (MC) BETWEEN: SMT. JYOTHI, W/O KUMARA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT HIREKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, GAVADGERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105 …APPELLANT (BY SRI.B.S.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. KUMARA, S/O KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT K.M.KOPPAL, MAKODU POST, PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 107 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.P.RUDRAPPA, ADV.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2018 PASSED ON MC NO.27/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HUNSUR, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42504-DB MFA No. 5726 of 2018 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent at length. 2. The instant petition has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2018 passed in matrimonial case M.C.No.27/2013 whereby an application purportedly filed under the provision of Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 was allowed and the marriage of the parties solemnised on 17.05.2009 was dissolved by the decree of divorce. 3. The parties are being referred to by their description appearing in the matrimonial case for the sake of convenience. 1 HM Act - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42504-DB MFA No. 5726 of 2018 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that without due consideration of the material on record and the evidence of the parties, the petition has been decreed. It is further stated that no permanent alimony has been granted. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has vehemently contended that on record were copies of the police complaint filed and receipt of the complaint by the police which were duly considered by the Court concerned while granting the decree of divorce. It is stated that the wife could have filed a petition under Section 9 of the HM Act, if she was interested to continue with the relationship, but she has refused to do so. However, learned counsel has stated on the basis of the instructions that even after the decree of divorce was passed, the wife came to the house of her husband and resided there for some time, but left the minor child with him and departed. 6. We have perused the impugned judgment and the records. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42504-DB MFA No. 5726 of 2018 7. It appears that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 17.05.2009 in the respondent's house at Hirekyathanahalli village, Gavadagere Hobli, Hunsur Taluk in presence of well-wishers and elders as per the rituals and customs prevailing in their community. After a period of two years of the marital life, from their wedlock a female child was born and thereafter the respondent started to ill-treat and harass the petitioner and his aged parents by disrespecting the parents of the petitioner for ‘silly’ reasons. The respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner and his parents very often and failed to perform her duties as a dutiful wife. The petitioner is an agriculturist and had no source of income except agriculture. He has the responsibility of maintaining his parents and therefore the petitioner tried to adjust with the respondent to his maximum extent. The respondent set up a demand for separate house for their living. The petitioner set up a separate house but, after a few days the respondent continued with her ‘acts’. The respondent tried to commit suicide when she was questioned about her misbehaviour. On 09.05.2013 the respondent picked up quarrel with the petitioner and hit him with a stick. She went to her parents' house along with her - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42504-DB MFA No. 5726 of 2018 child. The petitioner filed a complaint with the Periyapatna Police Station on the day of incident. The police had advised the respondent but, she did not listen to the advice of the police. The respondent allegedly even suspected the fidelity of the petitioner. Accordingly the petition was filed. 8. The respondent appeared through her learned counsel and filed objections but admitted the relationship with the petitioner. Counter allegations were made by her of being assaulted on her head by the petitioner with the stick on her failure to bring additional dowry from her parents. Therefore, she had taken shelter at maternal home. She was admitted to the hospital and a complaint was lodged. Panchayat was held and an application for maintenance was filed before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur. It was alleged that with an intention to get the second marriage by getting divorce, the petitioner filed the instant application with concocted story. 9. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon 4 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.4. Also examined was one witness as PW-2 and the evidence was closed. The respondent examined herself as RW-1 but did not rely on any documents. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42504-DB MFA No. 5726 of 2018 The following points of determination were framed by the Family Court. 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs claimed? 2. What Order or Decree? Its finding on point No.1 was in the affirmative. 10. We find from the reasons that the entire case has been discussed by the Court concerned in a little over one page of the judgment, without discussing the evidence on record as it ought to have been. It has only been stated that though the parties to the petition was subjected to tests of cross- examination, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve each other's contentions; whereas, the documents relied upon by the petitioner and evidence of PW-2 corroborate his case; that on the other hand, except denial of the case of the petitioner, the respondent failed to substantiate her contention with cogent documents and even not ventured to examine any independent witness to corroborate her contention. It is further observed that the material on record reveals that the parties to the petition are residing separately over a considerable period of time and respondent has also maintained a petition for her - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42504-DB MFA No. 5726 of 2018 maintenance; the act of the parties and their counter allegations reveal that the marital relationship of the parties to the petition is strained and it appears that there is no chance of reconciliation; if both the parties are ready to lead martial life happily and then only the institution of marriage survives or else, it is not only detrimental to the parties to the petition, but also to the society at large. The Court then observed that there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the petitioner and accordingly point No.1 was answered in the affirmative. 11. In our opinion the trial Court has sadly failed to consider the evidence in a manner which ought to have been. It is not for the trial Court to cursorily refer to the evidence on record on the judgment, without specifically adverting to the testimony of the parties and the material on record. This shows that the order has been passed cursorily and without due application of mind. Reasons are the soul of any judgment and unless proper and cogent reasons are assigned in the judgment, the appellate Court ought to intervene. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42504-DB MFA No. 5726 of 2018 12. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned judgment and decree dated 06.04.2018 passed in M.C.No.27/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur are set aside and the matter is remanded to the competent Court having jurisdiction in the matter to decide the matrimonial case afresh in accordance with law and with due expedition. Registry to return the trial Court records to the Court concerned. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending I.As. if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21