Smt Leela Yane Neelamma H S vs Sri Raghavendra S D S/O ...

                               1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                             AND

           THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI

              M.F.A. NO.1512 OF 2012 (FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. LEELA YANE NEELAMMA H.S.
W/O RAGHAVENDRA S.D.
D/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT DINESH NILAYA
VINOBHA NAGAR, 12TH CROSS,
3RD MAIN, DAVANAGERE.
                                          ... APPELLANT

AND:

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S D
S/O DEVENDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT OPP. U.R. ARTS PALACE
N H 17, AMBALPADY
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
                                          ... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. R.A.DEVANAND, ADV.)
                              ---

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:25.11.2011
PASSED IN M.C.NO.118/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, DAVANAGERE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S
13(1)(ia) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, FOR DIVORCE.
                               2




     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS,           THIS   DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

Memo for retirement filed by Mr.Harish Bhandary T., learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record. He is permitted to retire from the case.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25.11.2011 passed by the Family Court by which the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a direction in this appeal may be issued to the office of the Urban Development Authority to consider the prayer for grant of compassionate appointment.

3. We are afraid that for more than one reasons we cannot entertain the aforesaid prayer. The scope of the appeal is confined to examining the validity of the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2011 by which the marriage between 3 the parties has been dissolved. Besides this, the second wife as well as the Urban Development Authority are not parties to this appeal and it is totally outside the scope of the appeal and therefore, the prayer cannot be entertained. The same is therefore, rejected.

4. In view of subsequent events which have taken place, it is not necessary for us to deal with the validity of the judgment dated 25.11.2011 as the challenge to the same is rendered academic.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE RV