- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5673-DB MFA No.8735 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8735 OF 2017 (FC) BETWEEN: SRI RAJAN P, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O PANDURANGAN, R/AT NO.1496, NEAR WATER TANK, VIJINIPURA DOORAVANINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 016. …APPELLANT (BY SRI PRADEEP.C.S., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.GOWTHAMI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O P.RAJAN, D/O SMT. PUSHPARANIVENKATESAN, R/AT NO.833, 3RD SECTOR, I FLOOR, NEAR HSR CLUB, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 034. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RAMA R IYER, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2017 PASSED IN M.C.NO.2636/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5673-DB MFA No.8735 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. It has been pleaded that the respondent is residing separately from the appellant without any rhyme or reason for the past several years despite notice being sent to the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The reply to the notice sent by the appellant has been that the respondent is not interested to join him. 3. A perusal of the petition filed before the Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.2636/2012 reflects that it was filed under the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551. The allegations made in the petition are of cruelty. It has also been alleged that a notice dated 01.08.2011 was sent to the respondent by the appellant through his advocate seeking restitution of conjugal rights and custody of children. But the same was replied by refusal of the respondent to join. 1 H.M.Act - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5673-DB MFA No.8735 of 2017 The Family Court has categorically recorded a finding that the plea of desertion though was raised by the appellant, but if that was so he could have filed the petition under Section 13(1)(ib) of H.M.Act, and not on the ground of cruelty, as there were no pleadings and prayer for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. It has further been recorded that cruelty was pleaded but was not demonstrated by evidence. We have perused the petition of the appellant as well as the record, and we do not find any error or illegality in the findings returned by the Family Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15