- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB MFA No. 4819 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 4819 OF 2018 (MC) BETWEEN: 1. V. MANJUNATHA, S/O. LATE. VELUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT. 4TH CROSS, BEHIND PUSPANJALI TALKIES, VISWANATH COLONY, HULIYAR ROAD, HIRIYUR TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577598. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VEERESHA E., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. B. NEETHA, W/O. V. MANJUNATHA, D/O. K. THANGAVELU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT. C/O. SUGUNA POULTRY, KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577598. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE(ABSENT)) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB MFA No. 4819 of 2018 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.02.2018 PASSED IN M.C.No.20/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIRIYUR, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR 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) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur in M.C. No.20/2015. The appellant is the petitioner before the trial Court. 2. The case of the appellant was that he got married to the respondent on 01.09.2011 at Srimathi Thulasi B Narayanarao Kalyana Mantapa, Hiriyur according to the rites and customs prevailing in their community. Thereafter, they led marital life for two years, during which the respondent gave birth to one child. Thereafter, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB MFA No. 4819 of 2018 the respondent changed her attitude towards the appellant and his mother and she never had love and affection towards the appellant, always showing neglecting attitude. It was stated that the respondent made the life of the appellant miserable. The respondent used to act brutally and used to shout loudly stating that she does not want to live with the appellant. The respondent is not willing to join the company of the appellant. 3. In response to the notice, the respondent appeared through counsel but failed to file objections before the trial Court. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and produced his wedding card which was marked as Ex.P1. The respondent did not cross-examine the PW.1 nor did she lead evidence. 4. The following points were framed for consideration by the Court. "1. Whether the petitioner makes out grounds to grant decree of divorce? 2. What Order?" - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB MFA No. 4819 of 2018 5. The findings on the points were as follows: "Point No.1:- In the Negative. Point No.2:- As per final order for following" 6. The trial Court observed that the petitioner failed to lead evidence of any supporting witnesses to prove the illegal acts of the respondent. The trial Court noted that no doubt it is an internal matter between the parties, but the same by itself cannot be a ground to grant divorce. The allegations of desertion or cruelty or mental torture, are required to be proved by the petitioner. The trial Court noted that only vague allegations have been made and therefore, the divorce cannot be granted. It was further noted that allegation of illicit relation was also raised by the petitioner but no supportive evidence or document was laid. Accordingly, the point No.1 was answered in the negative and the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 was rejected. 1 the Act - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB MFA No. 4819 of 2018 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the misconduct and suspicious behaviour of the respondent was clearly pleaded in the petition for divorce, which was also proved by the examination-in-chief of the appellant. It is stated that despite the respondent not leading evidence nor cross-examining the appellant, the application for divorce ought to have been allowed. It is stated that for nearly thirteen years, the parties have been living separately and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the marriage. 8. We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears for the respondent. 9. We are in agreement with the observation made by the trial Court that the allegations made in the petition were non-specific and so was the examination-in-chief of the appellant. On the basis of vague allegations or without there being any specific - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB MFA No. 4819 of 2018 allegation, grant of a decree of divorce cannot be rendered a perfunctory exercise by a Court. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we uphold the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismiss this appeal. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13