- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45716 RSA No. 233 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 233 OF 2025 (RES) BETWEEN: MOHAMMED PEER SON OF LATE MOHAMED GHOUSE, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAGGADAVARA BEEDI, GUBBI TOWN, GUBBI, TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572126. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.V. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. NASEEM TAJ WIFE OF MOHAMED PEER, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHIKKABENDIGERE VILLAGE, HIREBENDIGERE POST, SHIGGAV TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581110. PRESENTLY R/AT. NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, YERRAPALYA, GULLAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LEELADHAR A.P., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45716 RSA No. 233 of 2025 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.9/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.01.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.64/2018 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff while seeking the relief of declaration and injunction praying the defendant to come and join the company of the plaintiff in the matrimonial house and lead a happy married life as his wife and contented that marriage was solemnized on 08.07.2002. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant has left the matrimonial house on 03.03.2005. Thereafter, 04.03.2015 the defendant along with her brothers assaulted the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45716 RSA No. 233 of 2025 plaintiff and his family members and took the signature of the plaintiff on a blank stamp paper and disclosed that she is going to write the consent of plaintiff for divorce of ‘Talak’ on the said stamp paper. The plaintiff submitted that the said divorce or ‘Talak’ if any, created by defendant is not binding upon him as per the Mohammedan law. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant in the written statement admits the marriage between her and plaintiff and denied the other allegations made against her in the plaint. It is contented that marriage was solemnized on 08.07.2002 and her parents have given cash of Rs.70,000/-, a wrist watch and gold ornaments to the plaintiff and spent Rs.5,00,000/- on the marriage. The defendant lead a happy married life only for about 4 to 5 months. Thereafter, on the instigations of his mother and sister, started demanding additional dowry and started ill-treating the defendant. On 03.03.2005 the plaintiff, his brother and sister poured the kerosene on the defendant and tried to lit the same using the fire and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45716 RSA No. 233 of 2025 hence went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint and also conciliation was made and plaintiff agreed to give ‘Talak’ to the defendant and their marriage was dissolved as per the deed of divorce dated 04.03.2005. It is contended that this defendant secured government job in the year 2008. On 09.05.2016, the defendant got married to one Amjad Pasha and currently living with him and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 3. The Trial Court framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and also taken note of admission on the part of P.W.1 that from 2005 to 2016 he has not made any efforts to bring back his wife. Having considered the material record and subsequent developments, the defendant got married after securing the job and living along with the present husband, the Trial Court dismissed the suit, the same is challenged before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.9/2024. The Appellate Court having re-assessed the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, formulated the point - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45716 RSA No. 233 of 2025 whether it requires interference of this Court. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence as well as admission on the part of P.W.1 and also the long gap between 2005 to 2018 till filing of the suit was also taken note of and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court. The main contention of the counsel was indicating the substantive question of law would contend that very dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court considering the document of Ex.D.1 is erroneous and First Appellate Court also committed an error in relying upon Ex.D.1 as it is not proved and such dismissal of the suit is in violation of the settled principles of Mohammedan law. Both the Courts have committed an error. When the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant is undisputed and lived together for some time and thereafter got separated was also not taken note of and hence, it requires interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45716 RSA No. 233 of 2025 5. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the reasoning given by the Trial Court wherein specific admission was given by the plaintiff that she was separated from him on 03.03.2005 and also the defendant relies upon the document of Ex.D.1 wherein consent was given for divorce. Apart from that she was secured the job in the year 2008 and thereafter she got married and living with present husband. All these factors were taken note of by both the Courts. The Trial Court and Appellate Court not only relied upon the document of Ex.D.1 and clear admission on the part of P.W.1 was extracted in paragraph No.12 and also detailed discussion was made in paragraph No.13 and also a case was registered earlier when an attempt was made to pour the kerosene and lit the fire on her and criminal case was registered. All these materials were considered by the Trial Court. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in considering the material on record. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45716 RSA No. 233 of 2025 frame substantive question of law. The Trial Court with regard to the marriage is concerned, affirmed the first issue. But, with regard to the other issue is concerned, considering the subsequent development, dismissed the suit and confirmed the same and no error on the order of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and unless perversity is found, question of admitting the second appeal doesn't arise. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER Second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42