Karnataka High Court
Smt Vedavathi vs Sri C L Yogichandra on 5 September, 2022
Bench: K.S.Mudagal, S Rachaiah
M.F.A.No.1177/2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1177/2014 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.VEDAVATHI
W/O SRI C.L.YOGICHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT SHIVARAMAKARANTH ROAD
NEWPET, BEHIND KEB
SUBASH NAGAR, ANEKAL
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.J.KALADEEPA FOR SRI G.S.PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SRI C.L.YOGICHANDRA
S/O LATE CHIKKALAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.14, M S LANE
NARAYANSHETTYPET
BANGALORE - 560 002
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.28/1
1ST 'B' CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD CROSS
SUDHAMANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.BOPANNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.11.2013
M.F.A.No.1177/2014
2
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE
IN M.C.NO.4091/2012.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. Aggrieved by the decree of restitution of conjugal
rights passed against her, the respondent in
M.C.No.4091/2012 has preferred this appeal.
3. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent
was solemnized on 27.06.1988. Out of the said marriage, the
couple have daughter aged 13 years and son aged 12 years.
Admittedly, the son is specially abled child.
4. The respondent filed M.C.No.4091/2012 against
the appellant before the trial Court under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree for restitution of
conjugal rights. He alleged that the appellant at the ill advise
of the members of her parental family deserted him since
09.07.2012. He also made allegation that the appellant and
M.F.A.No.1177/2014
her family members imposed several unfair terms against
him in their matrimonial life. Thus he sought for restitution of
conjugal rights.
5. The appellant was served in the said case and
represented through her advocate. But she neither filed
statement of objections, cross-examined PW.1 nor led her
evidence.
6. The trial Court on hearing the parties by the
impugned judgment and decree allowed the petition holding
that the pleading and evidence of the husband with regard to
willful desertion stood uncontrovorted, therefore they shall be
accepted.
7. The appellant challenges the said decree on the
prime ground that she was not given proper opportunity of
hearing. In the appeal memo, she states that her Advocate
had misled her that her presence before the Court is not
necessary and he was not cooperative. Such allegations
against the Advocate are behind his back and
M.F.A.No.1177/2014
unsubstantiated. Therefore it is not fair to accept any such
allegations against the Advocate.
8. However, the fact remains that admittedly the
appellant is living with her specially abled child and she has
no means of her own. Under such condition, the appellant
might have been disabled to follow the case regularly.
Therefore, lenient view has to be taken in her favour and she
shall be given opportunity of hearing in the matter. Therefore
the matter requires to be remanded to the trial Court for
fresh consideration in a time bound manner. Hence the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The impugned judgment and decree is hereby set
aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court.
The parties shall appear before the trial Court on
29.09.2022 without any further notice.
The trial Court shall give reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the parties and dispose of the matter as
M.F.A.No.1177/2014
expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months from
the date of appearance of the parties.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
