Nagaveni W/O Narayan Vannal vs Narayan S/O Shivaram Vannal
2022 Latest Caselaw 1868 Kant

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                       DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                           PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
                             AND
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

                    M.F.A. No.102143/2015
BETWEEN:

NAGAVENI W/O NARAYAN VANNAL,
AGE:24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
D/O SHRI. DEVINDRAPPA
KANAK BENCHINAMARADI, MARUTI
NAGAR, 5TH CROSS, RANIBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI. PIN CODE: 581 110.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
C/O. SHRI SHRANAPPA CHEGARI
MARATI NAGAR, NARSAPUR BETAGERI, GADAG.
                                                   ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANGRAM.S.KULKARNI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

NARAYAN S/O SHIVARAM VANNAL
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: BALAJI ROAD, RAJAPUT GALLI
BETAGERI, GADAG-582 102.
                                            ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VENKATESH.M.KHARVI., ADVOCATE)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.04.2015 PASSED IN MC
NO.37/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT,
GADAG.
                                 2




     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

The respondent-husband had filed a petition under Section

13 (1) (ia) and (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking

dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and unsound

mind against the present appellant-wife. The said petition in MC

No.37/2014 on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Gadag

(for short 'the trial Court') is allowed on 30.4.2015, granting a

decree for divorce. The husband is also directed to pay

maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month.

2. The wife has filed this appeal challenging the said

judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

3. The appellant contends that the decree passed by

the trial Court is virtually an exparte decree where she did not

contest the proceedings as the petitioner and the respondent

lived together burying their difference of opinion. However, it is

alleged by the appellant that without her knowledge the trial is

held and a decree for divorce is passed. Challenging the said

decree, the present appeal is filed.

4. This case was listed for final hearing. On the

previous two occasions, Sri Sangram S. Kulkarni learned counsel

for the appellant submitted that the husband-wife are living

together and there is no difference of opinion between them.

Learned counsel, Sri Venkatesh.M.Kharvi appearing for the

respondent had sought adjournments to seek instructions on the

statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Again today, the case is listed for orders. Learned

counsel, Sri Sangram.S.Kulkarni appearing for the appellant and

Sri Venkatesh.M.Kharvi, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent jointly submit that both husband and wife are living

together. The appellant-wife in her appeal memo has taken a

stand that even during the pendency of petition seeking

dissolution of marriage, the couple lived together as such, she

did not contest the matter. Now it is jointly submitted on behalf

of the appellant and the respondent that they are living together

and there is no difference of opinion between them. This being

the factual position the judgment and decree granted by the trial

Court dissolving the marriage of the appellant and the

respondent requires to be set aside and the petition seeking

dissolution of marriage is to be dismissed. The learned counsel

for the appellant and the respondent on instructions submitted

to allow the appeal and to dismiss the petition.

6. Under these circumstances, this Court has no option

but to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment and

decree passed by the Family Court, Gadag in MC No.37/2014 as

there is a happy reunion between the husband and wife. Hence,

the following;

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The judgment and decree dated 30.04.2015 passed in MC

No.37/2014 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag

are set aside.

Consequently, M.C.No.37/2014 on the file of learned

Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag is dismissed.

No order as to cost.

Pending applications, if any, do not survive for

consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE am