Roopa @ Renuka vs Parashuram Mareyappa Bhajantri
2021 Latest Caselaw 2789 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2789 Kant
Judgement Date : 13 July, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Roopa @ Renuka vs Parashuram Mareyappa Bhajantri on 13 July, 2021

Author: Krishna S. Yerur

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021

                         PRESENT

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
                           AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

              MFA No.103230/2014 (FC)

BETWEEN:

Smt Roopa @ Renuka W/o. Parashuram Bajantri,
Age 22 years, occ: Housewife,
C/o.: Fakirappa S. Bajantri,
R/o.: Hosalli, Tq.:Yallapur, District Karwar.
                                                ... Appellant
(By Shri D.B. Karigar, Adv.)

AND:

Sri Parashuram Mareyapa Bhajantri,
Age 27 years, occ: Business,
R/o.: Anchatageri, Tq.: Hubli,
District Dharwad.
                                            ... Respondent

(By Shri Sandeep K.Phatkare, Adv.)

This MFA is filed u/s 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the Judgment & Decree dated 21.07.2014, passed in M.C. No.15/2014 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Hubli, allowing the petition filed u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act.

This MFA coming on for orders, this day, Krishna S.Dixit, J, delivered the following:

JUDG MENT

This appeal by the wife seeks to lay a challenge to the

Judgment & Decree, dated 21.07.2014 entered by the

Prl. Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, whereby the respondent

- husband's M.C. No.15/2014 having been favoured, the

decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been granted

prescribing a period of two months for the appellant - wife

to join the matrimonial home. After service of notice, the

respondent - husband entered appearance through his

counsel, who has not come to Court.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellant and having perused the appeal papers, we are

inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for

the following reasons:

(a) The marriage in question was solemnized more than a

decade ago i.e., on 06.05.2011 at Anchatageri Village,

Hubballi Taluka; the restitution has been granted taking the

pleaded case of the respondent - husband as true and with

its face value since the appellant - wife could not effectively

prosecute her defence by regular participation in the

matrimonial proceedings;

(b) At paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 of the appeal memo, the

appellant - wife has stated as under:

"7. That the family court has passed the order without giving opportunity to the appellant as the appellant was not aware of the date of hearing and had lost the contact number of the advocate and could not contact him in time.

8. That the respondent has narrated the false story in the petition by suppressing the true facts. Two months after the marriage appellant had filed the criminal case against he respondent for ill- treating the appellant and for demanding dowry, case was settled due to interference of elders and parents of the appellant."

There being no denial of the same, we have to believe it

since there is even otherwise no doubt.

the kind on the autonomy of married woman and the matter

being debated before the highest Court of the Country in

the case of Ojaswa Pathakand Anr. V. Union of India in

W.P.(C) No.250/2019 we deem it proper that this matter be

remitted to the Court below so that both stake holders

would prosecute their version in a full-fledged trial.

(d) The absence of the husband has been noted by a

coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2016

with a warning that if he does not appear on the next date

of hearing the Court would have no other option, but to