Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71497 (KAR)

DR EKTA SINGH v. DR RAJEEV GIRI

MFA/8495/2023 · 2025-10-13

Jayant Banerji, K V Aravind

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40424-DB MFA No. 8495 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH 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. 8495 OF 2023 (FC) BETWEEN: 1. DR. EKTA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, D/O D. V. SINGH, R/A D-107, SRINIDHI, THE CENTRAL PARK, 14-A CROSS, BRINDAVAN LAYOUT, L. B. SHASTRY NAGAR, OPPOSITE AYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE, BENGALURU-560017. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. S. TARUNYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DR. RAJEEV GIRI, S/O DR. JAYADEV GIRI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/A No.D-006, CASA ANSAL APARTMENT, NEXT TO GOPALAN MALL, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40424-DB MFA No. 8495 of 2023 J. P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078. 2. SRI SHIVANAND MURTHY, S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AT COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITALS PVT. LTD., THE ICON, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, 8, 80 FEET ROAD, HAL IIIRD STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560075. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED IN MC No.3654/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(i) AND (i-a) 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40424-DB MFA No. 8495 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Though the vakalathnama of Sri. Rajath, on behalf of appellant is there, however, the proxy counsel appearing online seeks an adjournment. 2. We do not appreciate this conduct on behalf of the appellant. 3. The matter is of 2023 and the office objections have not yet been removed. As such, the request for adjournment is rejected. 4. This appeal is accordingly dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33