- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12823-DB MFA No. 105956 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL M.F.A. NO.105956 OF 2024 (FC) BETWEEN: SMT. SATYAVVA W/O. HULLAPPA METI, D/O. NINGAPPA JANAMATTI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KUMBAR GALLI, BILAGI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. HULLAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA METI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC DRIVER, R/O. TALAGIHAL, TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE TRAIL COURT RECORDS, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2023 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BAGALKOT IN M.C.NO.09/2023 AND REMAND THE MATTER FOR TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12823-DB MFA No. 105956 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2023 passed in M.C.No.9/2023 by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bagalkote (for short, ‘Family Court’). 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 17.05.2009 at Hulleshwar temple of Talagihal village as per the customs and rituals of their community. It is averred that the appellant resided with the respondent only for five days and thereafter, she went to her parental house and she did not returned to the matrimonial house. 3. It is further averred that the respondent in the October 2019 went to the appellant’s parents house and requested her to join the matrimonial house, however, she abused him and on 15.02.2022, the respondent issued legal notice to the appellant asking her to join him, but she failed to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12823-DB MFA No. 105956 of 2024 join him. Hence, he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which was allowed, despite the same, the appellant did not join the matrimonial house. Hence, he filed a petition for dissolution of marriage which came to be allowed. 4. Sri. Santhosh B. Mane, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is ex-parte without service of notice. It is further submitted that even the legal notice produced at Ex.P2 and Ex.P2(a) clearly indicate that the said notice was served to a wrong address. It is also submitted that notice of the Family Court proceedings were never served on the appellant and the appellant being an illiterate women, without means is required to defend the proceedings by adducing evidence. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by remanding matter back to the Family Court to reconsider the case on merits after providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 5. Though the notice of the appeal is served on the respondent, he remained absent. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12823-DB MFA No. 105956 of 2024 6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned judgment and decree call for any interference? 7. The material on record indicate that the respondent filed M.C.No.9/2023 under Section 13(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground that the appellant did not join the matrimonial home despite, decree for restitution of conjugal rights dated 23.06.2022 in M.C.No.36/2022. The records further indicate that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 17.05.2009 at Hulleshwar temple of Talagihal village as per the customs and rituals of their community. It is contended that the appellant resided with the respondent only for five days and thereafter went to her parental house and she did not return to the matrimonial house. Hence, he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which was allowed, despite the same, the appellant could not join matrimonial house. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12823-DB MFA No. 105956 of 2024 8. The records indicate that the notice issued to the appellant produced at Ex.P2 is not sent to her address as is evident from Ex.P2(a). The postal cover which is marked as Ex.P2(b) indicates that the appellant has not claimed the notice sent by the respondent. There is no material on record to indicate that the postman has given intimation to the appellant and thereafter he has put shara as ‘not claimed’. The said postal endorsement cannot be considered as a service of notice by the respondent. The judgment does not indicate that the notice issued to the respondent is served on her and despite that she remained absent. It is a specific assertion of the appellant that the notice of the proceedings is not served on the appellant and the said assertion is not contraverted by the respondent. Furthermore, it is required to be taken note that the appellant is residing in her parental house for many years as per the respondent-husband and the right to defend the proceedings for dissolution of marriage is a substantive right to the appellant. The appellant is required to be provided one opportunity to defend the proceedings by allowing the appeal. It is made clear that the appellant shall appear in M.C.No.9/2023 and file her - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12823-DB MFA No. 105956 of 2024 objections and contest the proceedings in accordance with law. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and decree dated 26.10.2023 passed in M.C.No.9/2023 by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bagalkote is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court to reconsider M.C.No.9/2023 by providing opportunity to the parties to the proceedings and dispose off the petition in accordance with law. iii. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM/CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55