- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41869-DB MFA No. 2235 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD 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. 2235 OF 2018 (MC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. V. SHOBHA @ SHOBHASHREE, W/O S. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT PAVAGADA ROPPA HOBLI, C. K. PURA, NIDAGAL HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK-571202. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VIVEK S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S. NAGARAJU, S/O LATE SUBBANNA, AGED 45 YEARS, PAVAGADA ROPPA HOBLI, KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK-571202. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S. SRINIVASA REDDY, ADVOCATE(ABSENT)) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19/03/2016, PASSED IN MC. No.22/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADHUGIRI (SITTING AT PAVAGADA), ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(a)(i) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41869-DB MFA No. 2235 of 2018 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 K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears for the respondent. 2. The appellant is the wife who was the respondent in M.C. No.22/2012 filed by the respondent- husband before the competent Court at Pavagada. By means of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 19.03.2016, the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 07.02.1999 at Chennakeshava Swamy Kalyana Mantapa, C.K.Pura, Pavagada Taluk was dissolved by granting a decree of divorce. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the order is ex-parte and without - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41869-DB MFA No. 2235 of 2018 affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and therefore, it deserves to be set aside. It is also contented that even the alleged compromise that had taken place, the terms of the same are not being complied with by the respondent and the appellant is not being paid any maintenance. 4. A perusal of the impugned judgment reflects that after the institution of the aforesaid matrimonial case, which was filed under the provisions of Section 13 seeking divorce on the ground of desertion. After institution of the petition, notice was issued to the appellant. Though the appellant-respondent appeared before the Court concerned through her counsel but did not file any objections. To prove the petition, the respondent- petitioner examined himself as PW1 and had produced three documents marked as Exs.P1 to P3. No evidence or documents were supplied by the respondent-appellant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41869-DB MFA No. 2235 of 2018 5. Before the trial Court, the following points arose for consideration: "1. Whether petitioner has made out a case for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty? 2. What order?" 6. Point No.1 was answered in the affirmative. Ex.P1 was the order sheet in Crl.Misc.No.39/2008 and Ex.P2 was the compromise petition and Ex.P3 was the petition filed in Crl.Misc.No.39/2008. The Court noticed that the documents revealed that the respondent- appellant had filed a petition seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. against the petitioner-respondent, which ended in compromise, in which one of the terms of the compromise was getting a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The terms of the compromise reflected that the respondent-appellant had agreed to receive maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. and had consented for divorce. Since the respondent had not co-operated for filing the petition for divorce on the ground of mutual consent, therefore the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41869-DB MFA No. 2235 of 2018 petition was filed for dissolution of their marriage. The Court found from the record that there was no co-habitation between the petitioner-respondent and the respondent-appellant since the date of marriage till filing of the petition. It was noticed that they had been residing separately since 2008 and the marriage between them had irretrievably broken down. The ingredients of Section 13(i)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were found to exist in the matter and therefore, the aforesaid point No.1 was answered in the affirmative. 7. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellant do not find support from the record of this appeal. It has not been demonstrated that the appellant was actually not served with summons and for that reason she had not put in appearance. As a matter of fact, the order impugned itself records that the respondent- appellant had appeared before the Court through her counsel but had not filed any objections. As far as non- grant of maintenance etc. is concerned, it is for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41869-DB MFA No. 2235 of 2018 appellant to seek appropriate remedy before the competent Court in that regard. It is admitted by the counsel for the appellant that no application has yet been filed seeking permanent alimony. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the competent Court dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. This appeal lacks merit and is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20