- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53221-DB MFA No. 3136 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3136 OF 2024 (MC) BETWEEN: SRI.M.S.VEERESHA, S/O SHANTHAMALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT BASAVAPATTANA VILLAGE, RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI, ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 133. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.9, NEAR CANADIAN SCHOOL, DASANAPURA HOBLI, SIDDANAHOSAHALLI, BENGALURU-562 162. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.MITHUN KUMAR.R.B. ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.RAMYA.K.E. @ BHAVYA.K.E, W/O M.S.VEERESHA, D/O ESHWARAPPA @ VEERUPAKSHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT KOLLANGI VILLAGE, BEMMATHI, MALLIPATTNA HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK, Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53221-DB MFA No. 3136 of 2024 HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT – NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED IN MC NO.29/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARKALGUD, DISMISSING PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed seeking to assail the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalagud in M.C.No.29/2021. By means of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petition filed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53221-DB MFA No. 3136 of 2024 by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 for dissolution of his marriage was dismissed with costs. 3. From the record it appears that on 13.05.2018, the parties were married at Channabasaveshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Arakalagud Town as per Hindu Rituals and Customs. At the time of marriage, the family of the appellant bore the expenses of Kalyana Mantapa and gave clothes and gold articles to the respondent and the entire expenses were borne by his family members. It was stated that their marriage was consummated on 15.05.2018 and thereafter he took the respondent to his native place at Basavapattana village. It is stated that thereafter respondent refused physical contact and said that she was not interested in the marriage and she was forced by her parents to get married. Thereafter he took respondent to Bengaluru where he is working in a private institution. In Bengaluru too there was no physical contact with the respondent. On 04.07.2018, the parents of the respondent took the respondent to their house for Ashada masa. Thereafter when the appellant asked the respondent to visit a temple, the 1 HM Act - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53221-DB MFA No. 3136 of 2024 respondent told him that she had become pregnant. On hearing that appellant raised objection but the respondent told him that child in the womb belongs to him and she threatened to commit suicide if he raises any objection, for which he would be responsible. The appellant was scared as his father is a heart patient and therefore without intimating anyone in the family he kept quiet. Thereafter parents of the respondent took the respondent to the native place of the appellant at Basavapattana and left her there for few days. During that time, it is alleged that against the wish of the appellant, Baby Shower function was performed and then the respondent was taken to her parents place. On 11.04.2019 the respondent gave birth to a male child. The appellant was mentally and physically depressed and remained at home without going to his job. When the mother of the appellant advised him to and meet his wife and child, at that time he revealed that there was no physical contact between him and his wife, but the respondent had become pregnant. When the matter was intimated to the parents of the respondent they quarreled with the parents of the appellant and promised to conduct the DNA test of the child and thereafter they would send the respondent to his home. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53221-DB MFA No. 3136 of 2024 Thereafter when the appellant requested that DNA test be conducted and called for changing the Aadhar Card, Ration Card and Election ID Card, the same was not furnished and the respondent remained with her parents. The father of the appellant underwent open heart surgery and was suffering from illness. It was stated that since there was no compatibility between the appellant and the respondent, the appellant has suffered mentally. 4. Respondent appeared through counsel and filed a statement of objections. The date and place of marriage was admitted, however, it was denied that the marriage expenses were borne by the appellant’s family. It was denied that she had told the appellant that she was not interested in the marriage and that she was forced by her parents to get married to the appellant. It was also denied that she refused to have physical contact with the appellant. Other allegations regarding threat to commit suicide were denied. It was further denied that against the wish of the appellant the Baby Shower programme was conducted. The birth of the male child on 11.04.2019 was admitted but it was denied that her parents - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53221-DB MFA No. 3136 of 2024 had agreed for DNA test of the child. Other allegations were also denied. The respondent referred to the unnatural conduct of the appellant and the fact that she had tolerated the mental cruelty caused to her only for the sake of her future. It was stated that when she intimated the conduct of the appellant to her mother-in-law and father-in-law and uncle of the appellant, all of them advised the appellant to mend his behaviour. However, this was of no avail. 5. It was stated that in the meanwhile she had become pregnant and for a period of seven months she stayed in her matrimonial home, where also appellant had caused mental and physical cruelty. When the Baby Shower programme was conducted, all the family members along with the appellant were present. Thereafter, she was brought to her parents house at Kollangi village on 11.04.2019 where she gave birth to a male child at Arakalagud Government Hospital. The appellant and his parents had visited the hospital and the appellant also visited the hospital and the appellant also visited Kollangi village to see the child two to three times. Thereafter when the baby was 9 months old, parents of the appellant and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53221-DB MFA No. 3136 of 2024 relatives took her to the native place of the appellant at Basavapattana where she stayed with her in-laws for one month and thereafter, as there was a marriage of relatives of her in-laws they sent her to her parents’ house. The appellant suffered from some ailment and she went to look after the appellant and stayed with the appellant. During that time also the appellant caused her mental cruelty. As there was COVID-19 Pandemic, she was sent to her parents’ house at Kollangi village. After COVID-19 lockdown she went to her in-laws house at Basavapattana where she stayed for 5 to 6 months and thereafter went to Siddanahosahalli at Bengaluru. After two to three days, the appellant caused physical and mental cruelty and threw her out from matrimonial home and thereafter she came to her in-laws place at Basavapattana. It is stated that she again went to the appellant’s residence but the appellant did not return home and was escaping from the respondent and now he is making false allegations and has brought the petition for divorce. 6. On the basis of the averments made, the following points were formulated by the trial Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53221-DB MFA No. 3136 of 2024 1. Whether petitioner has proved that respondent has treated him with cruelty mentally and physically? 2. If so, whether averments of the petition are true and correct and as such, the marriage solemnized between the parties is liable to be dissolved by a decree of divorce? 3. What order? 7. The findings on the above points are as follows: POINT NO.1 : In the NEGATIVE POINT NO.2 : In the NEGATIVE POINT NO.3 : As per the final order, 8. The appellant examined himself as PW-1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief whereby he iterated the entire averments of his petition. As far as the documentary evidence is concerned, appellant produces 14 documents which were all marked. 9. On the other hand, the respondent examined herself as RW-1 who also filed her examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit, reiterating her defence taken in the objections. She produced and got marked the documents from Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. 10. The trial Court recorded that the appellant is seeking decree for divorce on the ground of mental and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53221-DB MFA No. 3136 of 2024 physical cruelty caused by the respondent and also has made allegations regarding adulterous act of the respondent and had moved interim application for DNA test which was rejected. During his cross-examination, the PW-1 admitted that subsequent to the marriage he took the respondent to his native place at Basavapattana, wherein, they stayed for 20 days. He admitted that the Baby Shower function was held at his parents house at Basavapattana and he himself and his parents were present. He also admitted that the respondent gave girth to a male child on 11.04.2019 and he and his parents visited the hospital to see the child. He further admitted that at the age of 9 months, his parents had brought the respondent and the child to their native place. He however denied throwing out the respondent from the matrimonial home at Bengaluru by causing mental and physical cruelty. The appellant admitted that he had stayed with the respondent at Bengaluru together. The Court recorded that no material was placed to show that there was non-access to his wife and therefore there is presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18722. Accordingly, the points for consideration 2 Evidence Act - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53221-DB MFA No. 3136 of 2024 No.1 and 2 were answered in the negative and the petition for divorce was dismissed with cost. 11. We have perused the record of the case, including the testimony of the witnesses. 12. Nothing has been stated on behalf of the appellant to contradict the findings of the trial Court. However, strangely, the learned counsel for the appellant at this stage has raised a ground of desertion for divorce. It is noted that desertion was not specifically pleaded in the petition for divorce. It is admitted to the appellant in his examination-in-chief, that the Seemantha ceremony (Baby Shower function) took place at his parental home. It is also admitted that his parents as well as the respondent’s parents had participated in the ceremony. However, he alleges that fearing society’s repercussions and because his father had heart issues, he had kept quiet. It is noted that his application for conducting DNA test was rejected by the trial Court and that order has become final. Nothing has been demonstrated by the learned counsel for the appellant that would persuade this Court to hold otherwise. When the birth of the male child is admitted on 11.04.2019 and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53221-DB MFA No. 3136 of 2024 thereafter the child’s shower function is admitted and it is also admitted that after 9 months of age, his own parents had brought the respondent and the child to the native place at Basavapattana, the allegations of cruelty and the argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding desertion, have no force. As far as the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is concerned, where a party alleges non-access, it is for the party to demonstrate using cogent evidence that he had no possibility of access during that period notwithstanding any allegations of adultery. This we find, is startlingly missing from the evidence led by the PW-1 that is the appellant. Under such facts and circumstances, we see no merit in the instant appeal. This appeal is dismissed with cost. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE BVK; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29