Siddappa Chandrappa Patroti vs Bharati Chandrappa Patroti
2022 Latest Caselaw 1980 Kant

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                       DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 08TH 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.100515/2015
BETWEEN:

SRI SIDDAPPA CHANDRAPPA PATROTI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O: BILAGI, NOW AT NAVANAGAR BAGALKOT
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
                                                   ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.HEMANTHKUMAR.L.HAVARAGI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

BHARATI CHANDRAPPA PATROTI
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: BILAGI, NOW AT C/O SATYAPPA PATROTI
WADDAR ONI, BANAHATTI
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT
                                               ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH., ADVOCATE)

     MFA IS FILED U/S.28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED:15.11.2014, PASSED IN
M.C.NO.64/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,    BAGALKOT,    DISMISSING    THE     PETITION FILED
U/SEC.13(1A)(3) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                 2



                         JUDGEMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree

dated 15.11.2014 passed in M.C.No.64/2013 on the file of Prl.

Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot.

2. The petitioner-appellant alleged before the trial Court

that on 19.04.2009, he married the respondent as per the

customs and usage prevailing in their community. It is further

alleged that after the marriage, the respondent-wife joined the

petitioner-husband and led marital life for about one year with

the petitioner-husband. The couple has no issues from the said

marriage. It is further alleged that thereafter the respondent

started raising quarrelling with the petitioner for no reason, and

that respondent did not fulfil her marital obligations towards the

petitioner. The petition averments further disclose that the wife

had filed Cril.Misc.Petition No.48/2012 before the Prl.Civil Judge

and JMFC, Jamakhandi seeking maintenance. It is further alleged

that the respondent has left his company three years before the

presentation of the petition without there being any cause and

accordingly, he had filed a petition seeking dissolution of

marriage on the ground of desertion.

3. The respondent though served with the notice did

not appear before the trial Court and she was placed exparte.

Subsequently, the petitioner led his evidence in support of his

petition. It is noticed that the petition is filed on the ground of

desertion. However, evidence placed on record is relating to

alleged cruelty by the respondent. The trial Court noticing the

fact that there is a mismatch between the pleading and evidence

has dismissed the petition and also observed that no

independent evidence is examined in support of the case of the

petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition seeking

dissolution of marriage, the present appeal is filed.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant as well as the respondent. We have perused the trial

Court records.

6. From the petition it is noticed that the petition is filed

under Section 13 (1) (ia) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

However, the averments found in the petition is relating to

alleged desertion by the respondent and we have also perused

the oral evidence placed on record before the trial Court. The

oral evidence is relating to alleged cruelty by the respondent.

There is no evidence relating to what is pleaded in the petition

and there is no supporting pleading in respect of oral evidence

led before the Court. Under these circumstances, the trial Court

is justified in dismissing the petition. Nevertheless, considering

the fact that the respondent did not appear before the trial court

to contest the matter and considering the fact that the

respondent had filed a petition seeking maintenance in

Cril.Misc.Petition No.48/2011, it appears that the husband and

wife are residing separately for the last 10 years. Under these

circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back

to the Trial Court. The matter is remitted back to the trial court

to consider the matter afresh. Both the parties are at liberty to

lead fresh evidence in respect of their respective claim.

Respondent is also entitled to file a statement of objection within

30 days from the date of appearance. The parties shall appear

before the trial Court on 15.03.2022 @ 11:00 a.m without

waiting for notice from the Court.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

The judgment and decree dated 15.11.2014 passed in

M.C.No.64/2013 by the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM,

Bagalkot is set-aside.

The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on

15.03.2022 @ 11:00 a.m without waiting for notice from the

Court.

Pending applications, if any, do not survive for

consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE am