- 1 - MFA No.7183 OF 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH OF December, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7183 OF 2018 (FC) BETWEEN: SMT. P. SHILPA, W/O. K. DHANANJAYA @ BANUPRATAP, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.59, RAJU NILAYA, DODDAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, 5TH CROSS, KURUBARAHALLI BANGALORE-560 086. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.B. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. K. DHANANJAYA @ BANUPRATAP, S/O. SRI. K.V. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT 10TH CROSS, S.I.T EXTENSION, TUMKUR-572 101. …RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DATED 06.04.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.01.2018 PASSED IN M.C.NO. 4385/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955. - 2 - MFA No.7183 OF 2018 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 28.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8th January 2018, passed by the IV Addl.Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, (for short, `Family Court'), in M.C.No.4385/2013, filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 30.05.2012 in Satyanarayana Kalyana Temple, Kurubarahalli Bus stand, Bengaluru, according to the Hindu customs and rituals. After marriage, she went - 3 - MFA No.7183 OF 2018 to the house of respondent (husband), situated at Tumakuru. She stayed for 21 days in the respondent's house. On 06.06.2012, the respondent (husband) demanded additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and when her parents refused to pay the amount, he started ill-treating her. As per the custom, on 17.06.2012, petitioner was sent to her parents' house during Aashadamasa. On 08.08.2012, respondent sent petitioner to her parents house with a direction to bring the dowry. On 13.08.2012, petitioner's mother accompanied her and brought her to respondent's house. She promised the respondent that she would pay the additional amount of dowry within a short period. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 22.08.2012, respondent assaulted the petitioner and directed her parents to take back her to their house and he will keep her in his house only his demand for dowry of Rs.5 lakhs has been satisfied. When parents of the petitioner were unable to pay additional dowry, - 4 - MFA No.7183 OF 2018 respondent sent her to her parents' house. Thereafter, she has been residing in the house of her parents. 4. It is further averred in the petition that on 23.09.2012, respondent, his parents and relatives came to petitioner's parents' house, fought with her parents and assaulted the petitioner and snatched her mangalasutra. Due to the assault, she sustained injuries and she took treatment in a private hospital at Bengaluru. She lodged the complaint to the police in this regard against respondent and his parents. 5. On 16.10.2012, respondent issued legal notice to her, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and she had replied to the same. She has further stated that, she is not economically sound and respondent is earning an income of Rs.30,000/- per month from his employment. With these reasons, she prayed for the relief of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also prayed to award permanent alimony. 6. Respondent denied all the petitioner averments, except admitting his marriage with the petitioner and she - 5 - MFA No.7183 OF 2018 resided with him for a period of 21 days. He further stated that petitioner is belonging to poor family; Aunts and their respective husband have financially helped the parents of the petitioner to perform the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. Even respondent had paid Rs.8,000/- to purchase the marriage clothes. She was insisting the respondent to stay separately from his parents at Bengaluru. Due to small earnings of the respondent and he was under an obligation to look after his parents, he was unable to make separate residence at Bengaluru, leaving his parents. The petitioner was repeatedly telling him that she was not interested to marry him and since her parents forced her, she married him. She was not interested to continue her marital life with the respondent. Thereafter, she voluntarily left the house of the respondent and started residing with her parents' house. 7. It is the further contention of the respondent that, on 23.08.2012, due to ill-health, parents of the petitioner took her to Bengaluru to provide her treatment, - 6 - MFA No.7183 OF 2018 thereafter, she refused to join the respondent. Panchayath was held on 23.09.2012 and after panchayath, she lodged a police complaint against respondent and members of his family, with a false allegation of dowry harassment. Respondent denied the other averments of the petition and prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. The Family Court recorded the evidence of both side, heard the arguments and by the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner was unable to substantiate her contention of cruelty. 9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. 10. The following points emerge for our determination : (i) Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing the petition? (ii) What order? - 7 - MFA No.7183 OF 2018 11. Our findings on the above points is in the negative for the following reasons : The fact of the marriage and both petitioner and respondent resided together at Tumakuru for about 21 days, are not in dispute. The main grievance of the petitioner was that, she and her parents were harassed by the respondent and his family members for the sake of additional dowry. In this regard, she got examined herself as PW-1. In the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence, she has reiterated the petition averments. In her cross-examination, respondent was able to bring out the truth to substantiate his contention. The Family Court discussed in detail about the evidence of PW-1 and there is no need to repeat the same. 12. In the cross-examination of PW-1, she denied the suggestion of respondent that false allegations were made against respondent and his parents with an intention to live separately, to pursue her further education. The answers given in her cross-examination leads to an inference that there was no difference between petitioner - 8 - MFA No.7183 OF 2018 and respondent when she was residing in the house of the respondent. She has also admitted that she went to her parents house as per the customs during Ashadhamasa, so also to take treatment. From that, it can be inferred that it was not a forceful ousting of the petitioner for the sake of dowry. She gave a statement before the police in a criminal case registered against the respondent. In Ex.P- 13 i.e., the statement given by her to the police, she had made several allegations against the respondent. It is stated that the said case is still pending. In Ex.P-16, her statement was recorded, wherein she has stated that, at the time of marriage, it was informed to respondent and his parents that after marriage, she will continue her education and she required study materials. Therefore, requested the police to direct the respondent to provide the same and after completion of her education, if respondent invite her, then she would join him. 13. In Exs.P-14 and P-15 the statement of respondent and his parents was recorded. The contents of the said statements are similar to the contentions of the - 9 - MFA No.7183 OF 2018 respondent in the written statement. In Ex.P-13, which is the statement of the petitioner, she has not at all made any allegation of dowry harassment by the respondent. On the contrary, she has stated that "her mother-in-law was quarrelling with her on trivial issues. About a month prior to filing of the complaint, she was suffering from fever and at that time, neither the respondent nor his parents provided her treatment, instead they informed her parents to take her to their place to provide treatment. After getting treatment at Bengaluru, neither respondent nor his parents came to receive her to go to respondent's house, therefore, she remained at Bengaluru." 14. It is further stated by the petitioner that "on 23.09.2012, respondent, his parents and relatives went to her parents' house and assaulted on them." The said evidence is doubtful. If the said incident had occurred due to dowry harassment, there was no reason for the petitioner for non-disclosure of all these facts before the police. In the cross-examination of RW-1 (respondent), she could not get any admissions in her - 10 - MFA No.7183 OF 2018 favour to prove that she was subjected to untolerable harassment by the respondent and his relatives. 15. It is pertinent to note that petitioner did not examine her parents or any other witnesses to corroborate her evidence. As discussed by the Family Court, the fact of dowry harassment was not disclosed by the petitioner to her parents. As discussed by the Family Court, the said conduct of the petitioner is unnatural and not reliable. It also gives an inference that the said demand of dowry was made with an intention to obtain the decree of divorce. The evidence of PW-1 does not inspire confidence to believe it. 16. Under Hindu Law, marriage is revered as a sacred eternal union, not a civil contract. It is believed to be a bond created in heaven and fulfilled on earth. In the presence of sacred fire (Agni Sakshi), the bride and bridegroom clasp each other's hand and solemnly vow to uphold the fourfold purposes of life - Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha by reciting the sacred pledge, "Dharmecha, Arthecha, Kamecha, Mokshecha." They signify their - 11 - MFA No.7183 OF 2018 commitment to walk together in righteousness, prosperity, love and spiritual liberation. Thus, ceremony symbolizes not just a social union, but a divine partnership ordained by destiny. But, unfortunately, in this case, it appears that the petitioner thought that marriage is a child play. It appears, she had made allegations just to go to her parents' house to pursue her education. As per Hindu Marriage Act, unless, it is established by the petitioner that she has been subjected to unbearable cruelty at the hands of respondent and members of his family, she cannot seek for the relief of divorce. 17. The learned Judge of the Family Court has discussed in detail about the evidence given by both the parties and came to a right conclusion. It does not call for any interference by this Court. 18. Further, the petitioner is entitled for permanent alimony only if she is able to prove that she is justified in residing separately. But, in this case, she was unable to prove the same. In this case, the Family Court rejected - 12 - MFA No.7183 OF 2018 the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, the question of awarding permanent alimony does not arise. 19. For the aforesaid discussion, we answer point No.1 in the negative and proceed to pass the following : ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 8th January 2018, passed in M.C.No.4385/2013, by the IV Addl.Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is confirmed. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order along with records to the concerned Family Court without delay. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M. ADIGA) JUDGE bk/