- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6850-DB MFA No. 7039 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH 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. 7039 OF 2019 (FC) BETWEEN: SHRI.SOURAV PANDA, S/O. LATE SRI.SHRIDHAR PANDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT: NO.2576, 2ND FLOOR, 8TH MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE. ALSO AT: PLOT NO.2964/3880, NAGESWAR TANGI HAT, P.O.BHUBANESHWAR, P.S.LINGARAJ, KHURD DISTRICT-751 002, ODISHA STATE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.VISHNUMURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.SANJIBITA PATI, W/O SHRI.SOURAV PANDA, D/O. SRI. KEDAR NATH PATI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. UPPAR TIADI SAHI, Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6850-DB MFA No. 7039 of 2019 PURI TOWN-752 001. ODISHA STATE, INDIA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.KRISHNA MOORTHY.D., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01/01/2019, PASSED IN M.C.NO.5241/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.13(1)(ia) AND (ib) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. 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 T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) This appeal is filed by the husband seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 01.01.2019 passed in MC No. 5241/2017 granting divorce as well as permanent alimony. 2. The wife filed a petition under Section 13(1)(1a)(1b) and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 seeking divorce, and permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) and further to return Rs.18,08,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Eight Thousand) towards expenses incurred by the wife for marriage and related expenses. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6850-DB MFA No. 7039 of 2019 3. The case in the petition is that the parties are Hindus and their marriage was solemnized on 19.06.2006 in Municipality Kalyan Mantapa, Puri, State of Odisha. Subsequently, their marriage was registered in the office of the Registrar of Marriages, Bangalore City. The husband is gainfully employed in Bengaluru City and hails from a cultured background. It is alleged that the dowry was given in the form of gold and cash, and the husband remained dormant and cold during the performance of marriage without even basic communication. Instead of making the wife feel secure, he made her insecure and turned hostile from that very evening. Lack of physical relationship is alleged. It was stated that, later the wife came to know that her husband was incapable and just by quarrelling, he tried to keep himself away. The husband took away all the jewellery of the wife and started to post the personal photographs of the wife on social network. He physically assaulted the wife, for which she lodged a complaint on 06.05.2013, but it ended in a compromise. The wife was again assaulted on 30.12.2013, as a result of which she received treatment at Fortis Hospital, Bengaluru. On 03.01.2014, she was dumped by her husband in a bus to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6850-DB MFA No. 7039 of 2019 Mysuru in order to execute some gift deeds in his favour. It was alleged that the husband is earning Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) per annum. The collective deception of the family of the husband resulted in the petitioner landing in the situation of a destitute. 4. It is recorded by the trial Court that notice was issued to the husband through court and through registered post with acknowledgment due to his three addresses. But, it was not served on him. Hence, notice was ordered through paper publication, and it was duly published in the English daily newspaper ‘Hindu’ of Odisha Edition on 15.08.2018. Since on the hearing date, he remained absent before the Court, he was placed ex-parte. 5. The petitioner examined herself as PW1 and got marked 11 documents as Exhibits P1 to P11 and closed her side. 6. The following points were framed for consideration of the Court:- i) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has subjected her to cruelty and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6850-DB MFA No. 7039 of 2019 deserted her for more than two years prior to presentation of this petition, hence her marriage solemnized with the respondent on 19.06.2006 is liable to be dissolved under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of permanent alimony, litigation expenses and return of marriage expenses under Sections 25 and 24 of Hindu Marriage Act as prayed for? iii) What order? 7. The findings on the point are as follows:- Point No.1 : In the affirmative Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative Point No.3 : As per the final order. 8. The trial Court observed that the wife filed her evidence affidavit and got herself examined as PW1. Documents were filed by the wife demonstrating initiation of proceedings against the respondent against the husband and his family members under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act1. She had produced copies of the order sheet, FIR, Final Report in a criminal case at Puri to show that 1 DV Act, 2005 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6850-DB MFA No. 7039 of 2019 she had instituted action against her husband for dowry harassment and other offences. She produced document to demonstrate that earlier a petition was filed in MC No. 48/2014 on the file of the 5th Additional Principal Family Judge at Bengaluru, seeking divorce on the ground of mutual consent. These documents establish that the relationship between the parties was strained and had reached an extent that could not be patched up in future. It was clearly found to have been demonstrated that there are no chances of reconciliation and reunion between them. Accordingly, it was held that the wife is entitled for a decree of divorce. 9. As regards the amount of permanent alimony, it was noticed that the wife had not produced the salary certificate or income details of the husband. Supporting document to prove the income of the husband from other sources was also not filed. As such, the claim of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) towards permanent Alimony could not be entertained. There was no documentary evidence to show that a sum of Rs.18,08,000/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs and Eight Thousand) was actually spent by the wife or her parents towards the marriage. It was noted by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6850-DB MFA No. 7039 of 2019 Court that the wife had crossed the age of 37 years and the chances of her getting employed is very remote. Therefore, having regard to the financial condition of the wife, as well as her status and financial capacity, the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) to the wife towards permanent alimony and a sum of Rs,25,000/- towards one time litigation expenses. Accordingly the petition was allowed. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the only part of the impugned decree in respect of which the appellant would like to press this appeal is, with regard to the amount of permanent alimony fixed. He has, however, no objection to the decree of divorce granted. 11. As noted above, the amount of permanent alimony is fixed as Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) at the time of filing of the petition under Section 13(1)(1a) & (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Admittedly the appellant/wife was aged about 36 years. Nine years have passed. In view of the average life expectancy, the amount required for sustenance by a lady, having regard to the status and stature of life spent, it - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6850-DB MFA No. 7039 of 2019 cannot be said that the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs), as permanent alimony, is exorbitant. Even if the average life expectancy is taken to be 60 years of age, the amount of permanent alimony would not even work out to be Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. 12. We see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. This appeal lacks merit and is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE KGR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14