Karnataka High Court
Mrs Deekshitha Karkera vs Mr Supreeth on 3 June, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
M.F.A. NO.11838 OF 2012 (FC)
C/W
M.F.A. NO.11839 OF 2012 (FC)
IN M.F.A. NO.11838 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
MRS. DEEKSHITHA KARKERA
W/O SUPRITH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING PRESENTLY AT
NO.101, GREEN FIELD
APARTMENTS, VI CROSS ROAD
NEAR KMC HOSPITAL, ATTAVARA
MANGALORE-575 002.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. P. KARUNAKAR, ADV.,)
AND:
MR. SUPREETH
S/O LATE ASHOK KUKYAN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT KARKERA GARDEN
NEAR MARIGUDI TEMPLE
BOLAR, MANGALORE- 575 003.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. SHAILESH G. SHANKAR, ADV., FOR
MR. VAMSHI KRISHNA C, ADV.,)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:19.4.2012 PASSED
IN M.C NO.86/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
D.K, MANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC 9 OF
THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
IN M.F.A. NO.11839 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
MRS. DEEKSHITHA KARKERA
W/O SUPRITH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING PRESENTLY AT
NO.101, GREEN FIELD
APARTMENTS, VI CROSS ROAD
NEAR KMC HOSPITAL, ATTAVARA
MANGALORE-575 002.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. P. KARUNAKAR, ADV.,)
AND:
MR. SUPREETH
S/O LATE ASHOK KUKYAN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT KARKERA GARDEN
NEAR MARIGUDI TEMPLE
BOLAR, MANGALORE- 575 003.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. SHAILESH G. SHANKAR, ADV., FOR
MR. VAMSHI KRISHNA C, ADV.,)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:19.4.2012 PASSED
IN M.C NO.149/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
D.K, MANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC 13(1)(i-
a)(i-b) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
3
THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed by the appellant / wife
being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 19.04.2022
passed by the Family Court in M.C.No.26/11 and
M.C.No.149/11, by which the petition filed by the
respondent/husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short)
seeking restitution of conjugal rights has been allowed and
the petition filed by the appellant/wife under Section 13 of
the Act seeking dissolution of the marriage has been
dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly state that
despite the impugned judgment and decree dated
19.04.2012 passed by the Family Court directing restitution
of conjugal rights, the parties have not been able to stay
together and to resume their marital life. In other words,
there has been no restitution of conjugal rights for a period
more than one year after passing of the impugned judgment
and decree.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant therefore,
submits that the appeals may be disposed with a liberty to
the appellant to institute a proceeding under Section 13 (1A)
(ii) of the Act seeking dissolution of the marriage on the
ground that the judgment and decree passed for restitution
of conjugal rights dated 19.04.2012 has not been given
effect to for a period of more than one year.
In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeals are
disposed of in terms of the liberty as prayed for.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
