- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41255-DB MFA No. 7724 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 7552 of 2017 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. 7724 OF 2017 (FC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 7552 OF 2017 IN MFA No. 7724/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SMT ANITHA M., W/O V. SATISH BABU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.56, TCM ROYAN ROAD, BANGALORE-560053. ALSO AT No.22, CHANNEL ROAD, MINI BRIDGE, CHOLARAPALYA, BANGALORE-560023. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. M. RACHANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. V. SATHISH BABU, S/O VEDIVELU, AGEDABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.22, NAGAVENI TEMPLE STREET, CHANNEL ROAD, CHOLARAPALYA, BANGALORE-560023. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI DINESH GAONKAR, ADVOCATE(ABSENT)) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41255-DB MFA No. 7724 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 7552 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2017 PASSED IN M.C. No.1879/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955. IN MFA No. 7552/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SMT ANITHA M., W/O V. SATISH BABU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.56, TCM ROYAN ROAD, BANGALORE-560053. ALSO AT No.22, CHANNEL ROAD, MINI BRIDGE, CHOLARAPALYA, BANGALORE-560023. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. M. RACHANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. V. SATHISH BABU, S/O VEDIVELU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.22, NAGAVENI TEMPLE STREET, CHANNEL ROAD, CHOLARAPALYA, BANGALORE-560023. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI DINESH GAONKAR, ADVOCATE(ABSENT)) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2017 PASSED IN M.C.No.3813/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41255-DB MFA No. 7724 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 7552 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) No one appears for the respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Though, the name of the learned counsel for the respondent is shown in the cause list, however, no one has appeared. 4. MFA No.7724/2017 has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru in MC No.1879/2012 dated 05.08.2017 dismissing the appellant's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. MFA No.7552/2017 has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, in MC No.3813/2012 dated 05.08.2017 insofar as the decree of divorce is concerned. 6. It appears that the aforesaid two matrimonial cases were filed by the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41255-DB MFA No. 7724 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 7552 of 2017 respectively, which came to be decided by the common judgment of 05.08.2017. The case of the appellant in MC No.1879/2012 was that her marriage with the respondent was solemnised on 04.06.2009 at Arunachaleshwara Prarthana Mandira, Cottonpet Main Road, Bengaluru as per Hindu rites and customs. After three months of the marriage, she was ill treated and harassed by the respondent and his family members. From their wedlock, twin babies were born on 21.10.2010 named as Srinidhi and Srinthish. The appellant stayed with respondent at Bengaluru for two years, but neither the respondent nor his parents ever stopped harassing her. As such, on 21.10.2011 she complained against the respondent and his family members to the police. Immediately thereafter, she was thrown out of the matrimonial house along with the children. Though the appellant made several efforts to join the respondent, but it was all in vain and she was threatened with dire consequences. 7. The respondent filed his objections to the petition as well as submitted his counter case being MC No.3813/2012 under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) and Section 13(i)(iv)(v) of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41255-DB MFA No. 7724 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 7552 of 2017 Hindu Marriage Act, 19551. Several allegations of cruelty were made against the appellant by the respondent. The instances of cruelty were towards the respondent as well as the mother of the respondent who was assaulted and abused by the appellant. An instance was given when the appellant tried to kill his mother on 12.08.2011 by smashing her head with a boulder and further assaults were prevented with the intervention of the tenants and neighbours. Only with a view to prevent a general case being lodged against her, the appellant lodged a complaint of dowry harassment against him and his family. As a result of her false case, he got arrested and lodged in jail and was later released on bail. 8. The respondent also filed a criminal case against the appellant before the III ACMM, Bengaluru, bearing C.C. No.23393/2012 and thus he has no intention to join the appellant. To prevent further harassment to his parents, he shifted residence and the appellant was asked to collect monthly maintenance at the house, but the appellant to create more trouble, used to visit his mother's house along with her parents. Unable to bear the cruelty by the appellant, the 1 the Act - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41255-DB MFA No. 7724 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 7552 of 2017 respondent filed a divorce petition. The appellant got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. After closing the appellant's evidence, the respondent examined himself as RW.1 and also examined one Smt. Sushila as RW.2 and got marked 17 documents which were Exs.R1 to R17. 9. The following points arose for consideration by the Family Court: "1. Whether the petitioner/ wife proves that respondent/ husbane has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without an reasonable cause or excuse? 2. Whether the respondent/husband proves that petitioner committed cruelty on him after solemnization of marriage? 3. Whether the respondent/husband proves that petitioner ba deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two year immediately preceding the presentation of the petition? 4. Whether the respondent/ husband proves that petitioner ba been suffering from a virulent and incurable disease of leprosy? 5. Whether the respondent/ husband proves that petitioner ba been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form? 6. Whether respondent is entitled for the relief of divorce a prayed in the petition? 7. Whether petitioner is entitled for the relief of restitution o conjugal rights? 8. What order?" - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41255-DB MFA No. 7724 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 7552 of 2017 10. The findings on the aforesaid points recorded by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru were as follows: "Point No.1 : In the negative. Point No.2 : In the affirmative. Point No.3 : In the negative. Point No.4 : In the negative. Point No.5 : In the negative. Point No.6 : In the affirmative. Point No.7 : In the negative. Point No.8 : As per the final order for the following." 11. The Family Court considered the entire evidence on record including the testimonies of the respective witnesses of the parties. It was concluded after reference to various judgments of the Supreme Court that it was reflected that the appellant committed cruelty on the respondent after solemnisation of the marriage. The respondent and his mother were abused in filthy language and the latter was also attacked by the appellant. The Family Court, noted that from the evidence, it was clear that the appellant always quarrelled and agitated against the parents of the respondent and always had an eye on the property of the mother of the respondent. It was therefore held that the respondent is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41255-DB MFA No. 7724 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 7552 of 2017 Hindu Marriage Act but not under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act on the ground of desertion. Accordingly, the petition filed by the appellant-wife in MC No.1879/2012 under Section 9 of the Act was dismissed and the counter claim of the respondent- husband in MC No.3813/2012 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act was allowed. The marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is residing separately and without any maintenance from the respondent. It is noted that a decree of divorce has already been passed by the trial Court. 13. We have perused the judgment and we find that the evidence has been duly considered by the Family Court before coming to the conclusion. The instances of the cruelty that have been cited in the impugned judgment would fall within the meaning of cruelty as appearing in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. Instances of the filthy abuses being thrown at the respondent and his mother have all been mentioned by the Family Court. It was also found that the respondent had proved that the appellant had assaulted his mother and she was hospitalised for taking treatment due to the assault. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41255-DB MFA No. 7724 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 7552 of 2017 14. Nothing has been pointed out from either the pleadings or the evidence on record that the findings recorded by the Family Court are incorrect or that the same are perverse. 15. As far as the aspect of maintenance is concerned, since we do not intend to reverse the orders passed by the Family Court, in the aforesaid two Matrimonial Cases and the decrees are to be upheld, it is for the appellant to move an appropriate application under the Hindu Marriage Act for alimony in the case if, she is so advised. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, the aforesaid two appeals, lacking merit, are dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5