Sri. N. Umashankar vs Smt. M. Dhanalakshmi @ Smt. M. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5684 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                     PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

                       AND

    THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.350/2019 (FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI N UMASHANKAR
S/O SRI N NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT H.D KOTE
SIDDAPPAJI ROAD
H.B ROAD, MYSORE DISTRICT
MYSORE - 571114.
                                     ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.B RAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. M DHANALAKSHMI @ SMT. M VRUNDA
W/O SRI N UMASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.7, J.B KARAL GANESHA BLOCK
BEHIND PANCHMUKI GANESHA TEMPLE
NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560054.
                                   ...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
                          -2-


                         ****

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1964,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.01.2018
PASSED IN MC NO.917/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

                   JUDGMENT

The present Miscellaneous First Appeal has been

filed by the appellant- husband against the impugned

judgment and decree dated 27.01.2018 made in

M.C.No.917/2014 on the file of the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Bengaluru, allowing the petition filed by

the respondent- wife under the provisions of Section 9

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of

conjugal rights.

2. The respondent- wife served

unrepresented.

3. The impugned order came to be passed in

the year 2018 and now we are in the year 2021.

In view of the provisions of Section 13(1A)(ii) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, it is a good ground for the

appellant to file a divorce petition as there has been

no restitution of conjugal rights between the appellant

and the respondent even after lapse of three years

from the date of passing the decree for restitution of

conjugal rights. It is for the appellant to file a divorce

petition before the Family Court. Therefore, the

present appeal would not survive for consideration.

Accordingly, the present Miscellaneous First

Appeal is disposed of.

It is needless to observe that any observation

made by the learned trial Judge while passing the

impugned judgment and decree under the provisions

of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act would not come

in the way of deciding the fresh petition filed by the

appellant, if any.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PN CT.GD