Smt K Rajeshwari vs Sri H A Srinivas
2021 Latest Caselaw 2022 Kant

                         -: 1 :-


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

                         PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

                           AND

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

               M.F.A. No.4908/2014 (MC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. K. RAJESHWARI
W/O. H.A. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT MARDOLI HOUSE,
NARICOMBU VILLAGE & POST,
BANTWAL, D.K. DISTRICT
PIN: 574 219.                               ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE (THROUGH
V/C))

AND:

SRI. H.A. SRINIVAS
S/O. ANANTHA PADMANABHA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT "SRI VAGISHWARI NILAYA"
RATNAGIRI NAGARA, ABBALAGERE,
POST SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT
PIN: 577 201.                             ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE (THROUGH V/C))

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
20.06.2014 PASSED IN M.C. NO.42/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, BANTWAL, D.K,
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(i-a)(i-
b) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
                             -: 2 :-


    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Learned counsel for the respective parties submit in

unison that the parties have reconciled and are living

together despite the judgment and decree of divorce

granted by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,

Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, in M.C.No.42/2011, dated

20/06/2014, which is impugned by the appellant/wife in

this appeal.

2. Submission of learned counsel for the

respective parties is placed on record.

3. Since the parties are residing together despite

the decree of divorce granted by the trial court, in the

interest of justice and in the interest of the parties, the

petition filed by the respondent/husband is dismissed.

Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree of the

trial Court dated 20/06/2014 is no longer efficacious nor

does it have any efficacy. The appeal is disposed of in

the aforesaid terms.

4. However, liberty is reserved to both parties to

revive this appeal in case of necessity.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

S*