- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31526-DB MFA No. 1927 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1927 OF 2025 (FC) BETWEEN: SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, W/O. V.R. NAGARAJU, RESIDING AT NO.1105, R/AT NO.846, KESARE 3RD STAGE, KALPAVRUKSHA NAGARA, MYSURU -570 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMPATH A.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. V. R. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE RANGAPPA, R/AT NO.84, NGO COLONY, CHAMALAPURADA HUNDI, NANJANAGUDU-571 301. …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.06.01.2025 PASSED IN MC NO.196/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31526-DB MFA No. 1927 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The instant appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2025 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru in M.C.No.196/2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been dismissed. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was residing with the respondent upto 2022. But the respondent came up with a false case before the Family Court that the parties had separated way back in the year 1991 and he had remarried, which caused the Family Court to dismiss the appellant's application. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31526-DB MFA No. 1927 of 2025 4. However, from perusal of the judgment, particularly, paragraph No.18, it appears that the petitioner herself had stated that the respondent had already contacted 2nd marriage in the year 1991 and that fact came to her knowledge in the year 1993, but despite that she continued her relationship. The Family Court has noticed that as per the statement of PW-1, respondent had contracted 2nd marriage in the year 1991 and from the wedlock with the 2nd wife, he has children. In view of the statement made by the petitioner, which has been relied upon by the Family Court for dismissal of the application, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned. This appeal lacks merit and is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15