- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB MFA No. 201595 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201595 OF 2024 (FC) BETWEEN: ANITA W/O SHARANABASAPPA CHANDANKERI D/O LATE MALKAPPA BANDARWAD, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO.149, BEHIND DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, INDIRA NAGAR, KALABURAGI -585 103. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. VIJAYA MALLIKARJUNAPPA PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SHARANABASAPPA S/O LATE BASAVARAJ CHANDANKERI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: VAIJAPUR, TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 302. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT) Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB MFA No. 201595 of 2024 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN M.C.NO.329/2021 DATED 11-08-2023 PASSED BY PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in M.C.No.329/2021 dated 11.08.2023, on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as “Family Court” for short), the wife is in this appeal. 2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court dismissed the petition filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“Act” for short) seeking dissolution of marriage. However, the Family Court granted a decree of judicial separation for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB MFA No. 201595 of 2024 a period of three years and further directed that if the parties failed to reconcile during that period, then either of the party can proceed as provided under Section 13(1A)(i) of the Act. Brief facts: 3. The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 28.04.2007 as per the custom prevailing in their community. From the wedlock, the couple have two children. The case of the appellant before the Family Court was that, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the respondent. It was alleged that the respondent is addicted to alcohol and failed in his duty to maintain the family. The appellant is entirely dependent on her parents for her and her children's financial needs. Even the expenses related to child birth and upbringing of the children have been borne by her parents. It is alleged that under the influence of alcohol, respondent frequently quarreled with her and upon her attempt to reason with him, assaulted her - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB MFA No. 201595 of 2024 physically, often at the instigation of his mother. It is also alleged that he persistently demanded dowry, inciting debts incurred due to his bad habits and thrown her from the matrimonial house. 4. The respondent has denied all the allegations made by the petitioner and contended that the petitioner has voluntarily left the matrimonial home and that he has not subjected her to any cruelty as alleged. According to the respondent, the petitioner did approach him to resume cohabitation and lead a normal life, however, her parents were against the marriage. It is categorically contended that he has been providing all the necessary support and care for her and the children and he categorically denied all the allegations of cruelty, dowry demand and neglect as made by the petitioner in her petition. 5. Before the Family Court, the appellant examined herself as PW.1, one witness as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P3. The respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB MFA No. 201595 of 2024 examined himself as RW.1, two witnesses as RW.2 and RW.3 and marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R.2. 6. The Family Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, rejected the petition for dissolution of marriage. It observed that although the appellant-wife alleged that the respondent-husband has demanded dowry and even attempted to take her life by throttling, she has not lodged any police complaint to that effect. The Family Court further observed that while the petitioner claim to have made several attempts to reconcile, including visits to the respondent’s house, during which he alleged to have refused to accept her back, she had not issued any notice or initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court opined that if the petitioner really interested in resuming matrimonial life, she could have pursued legal remedies accordingly. 7. The Family Court further observed that the petitioner has failed to establish her allegation that the respondent has been addicted to bad vices or he has failed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB MFA No. 201595 of 2024 to provide maintenance and in the absence of any sufficient material to establish cruelty, the Family Court dismissed the petition for divorce. However, it granted a decree of judicial separation for a period of three years and further held that if the parties failed to co-operate and resume cohabitation within that period, either party would be entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 13(1A)(i) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, the wife is in the present appeal. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife. The respondent though served with a notice has chosen to remain absent. 9. Upon careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and findings of the Family Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Family Court has rightly dismissed the petition for divorce filed under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that several genuine efforts to resume cohabitation and preserve the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB MFA No. 201595 of 2024 marriage was made by the appellant, the respondent refused to accept her back and this aspect was not considered by the Family Court. It is argued by the appellant’s counsel that decree for judicial separation for three years granted by the Family Court is unwarranted, given the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the respondent’s continued refusal to resume matrimonial life and in these circumstances a divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act is justified. 10. The appellant though has alleged cruelty, including physical assault, dowry demands and neglect, there is no corroborative evidence or testimony from an independent witness regarding the allegations. The allegations though are serious in nature has been remained unsubstantiated. We cannot proceed on mere allegation without adequate proof, especially when the burden of proof lies on the petitioner in matrimonial dispute. When applying the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Courts have to be cautious in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB MFA No. 201595 of 2024 applying this doctrine, especially where attempts for reconciliation have not been fully exhausted or where one party expresses willingness to resume marital life. 11. It is also to be noted that the appellant herself admitted to have made multiple efforts to resume matrimonial relationship, including the visits to her matrimonial house. When these acts are considered, it negates the allegation of desertion, as they indicate an intention of her to preserve the marriage. The Family Court after appreciating the strained relationship between the parties found it appropriate to grant judicial separation for a period of three years rather than a decree of immediate divorce. This approach reflects keeping the door open for reconciliation, especially in light of the children involved. Judicial separation, being a recognized statutory remedy, allows both parties time and space to reflect on the future of their relationship. Further, it has been directed by the Family Court that if cohabitation is not resumed within the stipulated time, either party - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB MFA No. 201595 of 2024 remains free to initiate divorce proceedings under Section 13(1A)(i) of the Act. We find no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Family Court and accordingly we pass the following order: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 11.08.2023 in M.C.No.329/2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi stands confirmed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE Sd/- (K S HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT:NI