- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41114-DB MFA No. 5372 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH 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. 5372 OF 2018 (FC) BETWEEN: K M SHASHIKIRAN S/O K P MALLIKARJUNA SENIOR TECHNICIAN EMP. NO.6343/6945-44 HELICOPTER DIVISION HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. (HEAD OFFICE) BENGALURU-560017 RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: K M SHASHIKIRAN S/O K P MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.1053, 13TH A CROSS, GADDIGE ROAD, ROOPA NAGAR, BOGADI MYSURU-570026 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: S SHILPA W/O K M SHASHIKIRAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.32/47, 10TH MAIN, NANDINI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE-560096 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. L.V. MURALIDHARA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41114-DB MFA No. 5372 of 2018 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.19.04.2018 PASSED ON MC NO.368/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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. 2. This appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the judgment dated 19.04.2018 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru in M.C.No.368/2016, whereby the respondent's application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 for restitution of conjugal rights has been allowed. 3. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. 1 H.M. Act, 1955 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41114-DB MFA No. 5372 of 2018 4. The respondent's case was that she was married with the appellant on 07.02.2010 and a son was born on 21.10.2011. After that, she had lived with her husband for one year and three months, and thereafter, he dropped her at her maternal house while she was pregnant and with sinister design to get rid of her, filed a police complaint and Matrimonial Case No.248/2011 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. That petition came to be dismissed on 11.02.2015. Thereafter, the respondent tried to join the matrimonial home, but her effort went in vain. 5. The appellant filed his objections admitting his marriage with the respondent, but contended that they never lived as husband and wife nor there was cohabitation between them from the date of marriage till 06.05.2011. He denied that the child was his son. He alleged that his wife-the respondent was caught red-handed in his house along with one Sri. Vinod Kumar - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41114-DB MFA No. 5372 of 2018 on 06.05.2011 and therefore, he dropped her to her maternal home, but was not aware of her pregnancy. It was alleged that during the pendency of appeal against the judgment and decree in M.C.No.248/2011, the petition under Section 9 of the H.M. Act, 1955, is not maintainable. 6. After considering the evidence on record, the Court noticed from the cross-examination of PW.1 that she knew one Sri. Vinod kumar even before marriage. However, the appellant had failed to elicit anything worthwhile to establish that the said Sri. Vinod Kumar used to visit the petitioner/respondent even after marriage. One of the photographs - Ex.R.1 was placed before PW.1/respondent who stated that the picture appears to have been taken near the quarters, but the same cannot mean that it was taken inside the respondent's quarters. Moreover, the respondent was not found with Sri. Vinod Kumar in the photograph - Ex.R.1. The Court noted that as evident from Ex.P.3, the appellant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41114-DB MFA No. 5372 of 2018 had taken a similar contention in M.C.No.248/2011 and had claimed that the respondent was found in the company of one Sri Vinod Kumar in his quarters on 06.05.2011. However, the same was disbelieved by the Family Court for want of acceptable and convincing evidence. No other evidence was found to substantiate the case of the appellant. Therefore, M.C.No.248/2011 was dismissed. The Family Court noted that, the appellant is making unsubstantiated allegations of unchaste behaviour by the respondent and therefore, declined to grant any relief and allowed the petition under Section 9 of the H.M. Act, 1955 and granted the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent. The appellant was held to be bound to pay her maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, in M.C.No.248/2011 which was filed by the appellant seeking divorce from the respondent, he had filed a document bearing paper No.P17, which was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41114-DB MFA No. 5372 of 2018 proof of the respondent being engaged in employment and that she was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.21,843/- per month. It is stated that this was a crucial piece of evidence, which he was not permitted to file during the proceedings under Section 9 of the H.M. Act, 1955. 8. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant is unsustainable. There was no bar to the appellant in producing relevant documents. It is evident from the perusal of the order sheet of the Family Court that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the appellant. As a matter of fact, on an I.A. filed by the appellant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 and Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908 to recall PW.1 for further examination, the same was allowed and PW.1/respondent was recalled for cross-examination and the Court observed on 09.02.2018 that the further cross-examination of PW.1 was closed. The appellant's evidence was already taken as 'nil'. 2 CPC, 1908 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41114-DB MFA No. 5372 of 2018 The matter was fixed for arguments on 26.02.2018. In the order of 12.04.2018, it is noted by the Family Court that ample opportunity was accorded to the appellant to lead his evidence after closing the petitioner's side on 10.07.2017. He repeatedly filed applications to re-open the case for further cross-examination of PW.1. Even thereafter, time was granted for the appellant's evidence, but he did not choose to adduce his evidence. Therefore, his evidence was taken as 'nil' on 09.02.2018 and posted for arguments on 26.02.2018. Even on 13.03.2018, when the case was posted the case for arguments on merit, the appellant filed application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 praying for time till first week of April, 2018 to lead his evidence on the ground that he was working in Goa and therefore, time was granted till 02.04.2018 to address the arguments. On 02.04.2018, though the appellant and his counsel were present in the Court, no steps were taken to lead the appellant's evidence. On the other hand, his counsel - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41114-DB MFA No. 5372 of 2018 proceeded to address his arguments on merits. Therefore, the IA filed by him to lead evidence was rejected. 9. There is no material on record to demonstrate whether this order of 12.04.2018 was ever challenged by the appellant. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is baseless. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant states that his case has not been considered in proper light. Nothing has been demonstrated from the record that would convince us to hold otherwise than what has been held by the Trial Court. No convincing evidence had been filed that would enure to the benefit of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is evident that the case for divorce filed by the appellant against the respondent has been dismissed and it has attained finality. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41114-DB MFA No. 5372 of 2018 11. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal lacks in merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12