[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri.G. Sudhindra Kulkarni vs Smt. B.P.Sreemathi on 1 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB
MFA No. 7649 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 7649 OF 2018 (FC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.G. SUDHINDRA KULKARNI,
S/O LATE GOPAL RAO,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT No.4022-B/6,
I MAIN, III CROSS,
GAYATHRI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. ROHAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.R. BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SMT. B.P.SREEMATHI
KARNATAKA
@ SREENIDHI,
D/O LATE PRANESH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A No.13/2, 4TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN, OKALIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560021.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB
MFA No. 7649 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT, 1984 R/W SECTION 28 OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 01.08.2018, PASSED IN MC No.2033/2011 ON THE FILE
OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 5,10,11,12, 29(2) OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 'DISMISSAL', THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment
and decree dated 01.08.2018 passed by the IV Additional
Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the petition
filed by the appellant before the Family Court under Sections 5,
10, 11, 12 and 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 has
been dismissed.
Act
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to various
pleadings made by the appellant to contend that the
respondent was unable to bear a child and therefore, a decree
for declaration of nullity of the marriage with the respondent
was sought. After filing of the petition aforesaid, the statement
of objections was filed by the respondent. However, the
petitioner filed a so-called "counter claim application" under
Order VIII Rule 6A(3) of CPC. To this so called counter claim,
the respondent filed statement of objections stating that the
counter claim is irregular and not maintainable in law.
4. During the course of evidence, the petitioner/appellant
examined himself as PW1 and got marked 13 documents being
Exhibits P1 to P13. The respondent, however, did not appear
after filing the objections. Based on the pleadings, the following
points arose for consideration of the Family Court.
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled
for the relief of judicial separation under section
10 of Hindu Marriage Act?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled
for declaration of nullity of his marriage with the
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB
HC-KAR
respondent solemnized on 21.01.1991, under
section 11 r/w/s 5 of Hindu Marriage Act?
3. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled
for declaration of nullity of his marriage with the
respondent solemnized on 21.01.1991, under
section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act?
4. What order?"
4.1 The findings on the above points were as under:
"1. In the Negative
2. In the Negative
3. In the Negative
4. As per the final order"
5. Regarding Point No.1, the Court found that the petitioner
was seeking relief on the ground of impotency of the
respondent and fraud played by her by suppression of facts.
Noting the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, the Court held
that the case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the
grounds available therein. Accordingly, the petitioner was held
as not entitled for the relief of judicial separation.
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB
HC-KAR
6. As regards Point No.2, Section 11 of the Act speaks of a
decree of nullity of the marriage, where certain provisions
specified in Section 5 of the Act are contravened. It was noted
by the Court that, it is not the case of the petitioner that at the
time of his marriage with the respondent, the respondent had a
spouse living; or that the petitioner and the respondents are
within the degree of prohibited relationship; or that he and the
respondent are sapindas. It was therefore held that the
petitioner is not entitled to the relief of decree of nullity under
Section 11 of the Act.
7. As regards Point No.3, the Family Court observed that
four grounds are available to seek a decree of nullity in Section
12(1) of the Act. Clauses (b) and (d) were observed to be not
relevant to the facts of the case in hand. As regards clauses
(a) and (c), [Clause (c) is wrongly mentioned as clause (d) in
the judgment], the Court observed that on a combined reading
of the petition averments and the affidavit of the petitioner, it
could be gathered that the petitioner was trying to plead
impotency of the respondent. He is also trying to allege fraud
by stating that these facts were not disclosed to the petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB
HC-KAR
at the time of marriage, but came to light during the medical
treatment given to the respondent after marriage.
8. The Family Court noted that, earlier the petitioner had
filed M.C.No.422/2004 against the respondent seeking a decree
of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It is stated
that what is necessary to observe is that the grounds urged
and the issues involved in M.C.No.422/2004 and in the case at
hand are one and the same. Even the documents produced by
the respondent in M.C.No.422/2004 and in the present petition
are one and the same. By a judgment dated 28.06.2010, the
Family Court disposed of the aforesaid M.C.No.422/2004 on
merits. The Family Court noted that co-habitation between the
parties was proved and the fact that due to some biological
defect, the respondent is unable to conceive or bear a child
would not be a ground for grant of divorce under Section 13 of
Act. Even other medical drawbacks that were stated to be of
the respondent were not such so as to obtain a decree of
divorce. It was further noted that the petitioner had not
examined any medical expert or doctor who had issued the
medical reports.
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB
HC-KAR
9. The respondent had not cross-examined PW1. However,
the petitioner had to discharge the initial burden cast upon him.
In the previous petition seeking divorce, fraud was alleged for
the reason that the original date of birth of the respondent as
well as her educational qualification was suppressed. However,
in the instant petition, the horoscope and the SSLC marks card
of the respondent and her employment card were held to be
not relevant documents. It was held that, in M.C. No.422/2004,
a finding was recorded that the alleged suppression of original
date of birth of the respondent and her educational qualification
would not amount to fraud.
10. Even the medical records that were produced by the
petitioner were inconclusive to prove the allegation of cruelty.
It was, therefore, held that the petitioner had failed to prove
that the marriage had not been consummated owing to the
impotence of the respondent. Failure to prove fraud was also
found. It was accordingly held that no decree under Section 12
of the Act could be made.
11. The Family Court noted that various allegations were
made by the appellant/petitioner in his pleadings filed before
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB
HC-KAR
the Court. Bad words were used for the respondent which
touched on the dignity of womanhood. It was also noticed that
contumacious words were used even against the Courts of law
and a learned Judge of the High Court. It was held that the
attitude of the petitioner showed that he is a cantankerous
litigant. The petition was therefore dismissed with cost of
Rs.5,000/-.
12. Nothing has been pointed out to us that the findings
recorded by the Family Court are erroneous or perverse or
there is non-application of mind.
13. We have perused the examination-in-chief of the
petitioner, which was filed by way of an affidavit. In that
affidavit also, vague allegations have been leveled, which also
reflect a complete disrespect for womanhood. The allegations
made in the affidavit, though may be of some support to the
petitioner, however, the same are not conclusive of the facts
that any of the grounds available to the petitioner under
Section 12 of the Act were shown to exist or to be proved.
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB
HC-KAR
14. Under the circumstances, we find that there is no merit in
the appeal and it is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
