- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31075-DB MFA No. 6124 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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. 6124 OF 2017 (MC) BETWEEN: SRI. B.S.PRABHUSWAMY, S/O K.SHIVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O BALLAGERE VILLAGE, MALAVALLI -TQ, MANDYA DIST-571 401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.RAJA L., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MALLAMMANNI, W/O B.S.PRABHUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, D/O LATE.MAHADEVAPPA, R/O C/O B.V.VEERABHADRAIAH, WORKER IN NANDINI MILK PARLOR , (JSS LADIES COLLEGE CAMPUS, MYSORE) VEERABHADRARESWARAA NILAYA, #2938, 4TH CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE -570 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PRINCE ISAC, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31075-DB MFA No. 6124 of 2017 THIS MFA FILED U/S.28(1) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.01.2017 IN MC NO.11/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALAVALLI, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE AND GRANT DECREE OF DIVORCE DISSOLVING MARRIAGE. 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 UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 2. This is the husband's appeal against the judgment dated 27.01.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli in MC.No.11/2011, whereby the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 seeking a decree of divorce, has been rejected by the Court. 1 Act, 1955 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31075-DB MFA No. 6124 of 2017 3. A perusal of the Judgment reflects that several allegations were made in the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, before the Civil Judge, in respect of the alleged harassment being meted out by the respondent/wife. In the objections filed by the respondent/wife, the entire allegations against her were denied except that the parents of the respondent had given cash of ₹50,000/- and 80 grams of gold to the petitioner and performed the marriage by investing more than ₹3,00,000/- and dismissal of the petition was sought. 4. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 and the NCR given to the police station, the legal notice issued by the petitioner, certified copy of the FIR, certified copy of the charge sheet, complaint lodged by the brother of the respondent against the petitioner and other documents were sought to be proved. 5. The cross-examination was noticed by the Court, in which, the appellant when examined by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31075-DB MFA No. 6124 of 2017 learned counsel for the respondent, stated that he and his wife were leading their matrimonial life happily for three years and the respondent became pregnant and he sent her to their parent's house for the first confinement. PW-1 has denied that he has not visited the house of the respondent to see his wife and child even after delivery. He conceded that brother of his wife took both of them to Mysuru where they have been running a milk parlour. Demand of dowry from the respondent has been denied by PW-1. 6. The respondent filed an affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief as RW-1 by reiterating the contents of the objection statement. She referred to the admission application of her son and receipts issued to her son. She has referred to certified copy of the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner against an order dated 17.11.2005 passed by the Civil Judge and the memo filed by the petitioner for not pressing the criminal petition before the V Additional District Judge, Mandya. In her - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31075-DB MFA No. 6124 of 2017 cross-examination she has stated that her brother and her brother-in-law, who is the brother of her husband, were best friends and were doing real estate business jointly and because of certain misunderstanding between them in business, her brother instigated her to file dowry harassment case against the petitioner and his brother to harass the petitioner and his family members. She admitted that she had filed the petition against her husband for maintenance. She also admitted that she also filed a criminal case against her brother-in-law. However, she denied that she had forced her husband to settle at Mysuru at the instigation of her brother. She denied that the petitioner harassed her by demanding dowry and she stated that he never subjected her to cruelty at any point of time. 7. On perusal of the statement made and the cross-examination of PW-1 and RW-1 and the material available on record, the Court analysed that except formal allegation made by the petitioner that the respondent used - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31075-DB MFA No. 6124 of 2017 to pick-up quarrel with the petitioner and even assaulted the petitioner and caused injuries and that she also filed a dowry harassment case against him as well as his parents, the petitioner has not produced any evidence by examining any one of the witnesses who resided in the neighbouring house to prove the same. It was noticed that the petitioner had stated that he is ready to live with the respondent to discharge the marital life. 8. In his cross-examination the petitioner stated that the respondent is ready to discharge her matrimonial duty with him if he is ready but he totally denied to take the respondent. This showed that because of his attitude the respondent did not discharge her matrimonial duties with the petitioner, but it was not stated by the petitioner that the respondent herself has neglected and deserted him. Though the petitioner made allegations against the respondent with regard to lodging of complaint at the instigation of the brother of the respondent because of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31075-DB MFA No. 6124 of 2017 which the marital life of the petitioner was spoiled, no evidence was available to that effect. 9. The Court found that there was no material to show that the respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty or the respondent deserted the petitioner. The Court noted that the evidence was that both the petitioner and his wife ran a milk parlour at Mysuru and have resided together by discharging matrimonial duties along with their son. The Court noted that it was due to the adamant act of the petitioner that the matrimonial life of the petitioner had worsened. The Court accordingly found that there was no reason to allow the petition since the respondent herself was ready to discharge the matrimonial duties by joining the petitioner along with the child. The Court noted that the child is in the custody of the petitioner studying at Mysuru and if the parents did not join to lead their life, it would definitely cause adverse effect on the future life of the child. The Court further relied upon the judgment of this Court in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31075-DB MFA No. 6124 of 2017 K. Narayana Vs. K. Sridevi2 to reject the petition for divorce. 10. Nothing has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contradict the findings of the Court. On going through the records, we are of the opinion that the order of the Court is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the application for divorce was correctly rejected. 11. We find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 2 AIR 1990 KAR 151