[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt P Shilpa vs Sri K Dhananjaya @ Banupratap on 8 December, 2025

                           -1-
                                    MFA No.7183 OF 2018


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 08TH OF December, 2025

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
                          AND
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7183 OF 2018 (FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. P. SHILPA,
W/O. K. DHANANJAYA @ BANUPRATAP,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.59,
RAJU NILAYA,
DODDAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
5TH CROSS, KURUBARAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 086.
                                           ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.B. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. K. DHANANJAYA @ BANUPRATAP,
S/O. SRI. K.V. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 10TH CROSS,
S.I.T EXTENSION, TUMKUR-572 101.
                                          ...RESPONDENT

(VIDE ORDER DATED 06.04.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
 RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
08.01.2018 PASSED IN M.C.NO. 4385/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF
THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.
                              -2-
                                       MFA No.7183 OF 2018


     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT     ON    28.11.2025,  COMING    ON    FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
       and
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA


                      CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

This appeal is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved

by the judgment and decree dated 8th January 2018,

passed by the IV Addl.Principal Judge, Family Court,

Bengaluru, (for short, `Family Court'), in

M.C.No.4385/2013, filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, petitioner is

legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage

was performed on 30.05.2012 in Satyanarayana Kalyana

Temple, Kurubarahalli Bus stand, Bengaluru, according to

the Hindu customs and rituals. After marriage, she went

MFA No.7183 OF 2018

to the house of respondent (husband), situated at

Tumakuru. She stayed for 21 days in the respondent's

house. On 06.06.2012, the respondent (husband)

demanded additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and when her

parents refused to pay the amount, he started ill-treating

her. As per the custom, on 17.06.2012, petitioner was

sent to her parents' house during Aashadamasa. On

08.08.2012, respondent sent petitioner to her parents

house with a direction to bring the dowry. On 13.08.2012,

petitioner's mother accompanied her and brought her to

respondent's house. She promised the respondent that

she would pay the additional amount of dowry within a

short period.

It is the further case of the petitioner that on

22.08.2012, respondent assaulted the petitioner and

directed her parents to take back her to their house and

he will keep her in his house only his demand for dowry of

Rs.5 lakhs has been satisfied. When parents of the

petitioner were unable to pay additional dowry,

MFA No.7183 OF 2018

respondent sent her to her parents' house. Thereafter, she

has been residing in the house of her parents.

4. It is further averred in the petition that on

23.09.2012, respondent, his parents and relatives came to

petitioner's parents' house, fought with her parents and

assaulted the petitioner and snatched her mangalasutra.

Due to the assault, she sustained injuries and she took

treatment in a private hospital at Bengaluru. She lodged

the complaint to the police in this regard against

respondent and his parents.

5. On 16.10.2012, respondent issued legal notice to

her, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and she had

replied to the same. She has further stated that, she is

not economically sound and respondent is earning an

income of Rs.30,000/- per month from his employment.

With these reasons, she prayed for the relief of divorce

under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and

also prayed to award permanent alimony.

6. Respondent denied all the petitioner averments,

except admitting his marriage with the petitioner and she

MFA No.7183 OF 2018

resided with him for a period of 21 days. He further

stated that petitioner is belonging to poor family; Aunts

and their respective husband have financially helped the

parents of the petitioner to perform the marriage of the

petitioner with the respondent. Even respondent had paid

Rs.8,000/- to purchase the marriage clothes. She was

insisting the respondent to stay separately from his

parents at Bengaluru. Due to small earnings of the

respondent and he was under an obligation to look after

his parents, he was unable to make separate residence at

Bengaluru, leaving his parents. The petitioner was

repeatedly telling him that she was not interested to marry

him and since her parents forced her, she married him.

She was not interested to continue her marital life with the

respondent. Thereafter, she voluntarily left the house of

the respondent and started residing with her parents'

house.

7. It is the further contention of the respondent that,

on 23.08.2012, due to ill-health, parents of the petitioner

took her to Bengaluru to provide her treatment,

MFA No.7183 OF 2018

thereafter, she refused to join the respondent.

Panchayath was held on 23.09.2012 and after

panchayath, she lodged a police complaint against

respondent and members of his family, with a false

allegation of dowry harassment. Respondent denied the

other averments of the petition and prayed to dismiss the

petition.

8. The Family Court recorded the evidence of both

side, heard the arguments and by the impugned

judgment, dismissed the petition on the ground that

petitioner was unable to substantiate her contention of

cruelty.

9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

appellant.

10. The following points emerge for our

determination :

              (i)    Whether       the       Family     Court     erred       in
        dismissing the petition?

              (ii) What order?

                                           MFA No.7183 OF 2018

11. Our findings on the above points is in the

negative for the following reasons :

The fact of the marriage and both petitioner and

respondent resided together at Tumakuru for about

21 days, are not in dispute. The main grievance of the

petitioner was that, she and her parents were harassed

by the respondent and his family members for the sake of

additional dowry. In this regard, she got examined

herself as PW-1. In the affidavit filed in lieu of

evidence, she has reiterated the petition averments.

In her cross-examination, respondent was able to bring

out the truth to substantiate his contention. The Family

Court discussed in detail about the evidence of PW-1 and

there is no need to repeat the same.

12. In the cross-examination of PW-1, she denied the

suggestion of respondent that false allegations were made

against respondent and his parents with an intention to

live separately, to pursue her further education. The

answers given in her cross-examination leads to an

inference that there was no difference between petitioner

MFA No.7183 OF 2018

and respondent when she was residing in the house of the

respondent. She has also admitted that she went to her

parents house as per the customs during Ashadhamasa, so

also to take treatment. From that, it can be inferred that

it was not a forceful ousting of the petitioner for the sake

of dowry. She gave a statement before the police in a

criminal case registered against the respondent. In Ex.P-

13 i.e., the statement given by her to the police, she had

made several allegations against the respondent. It is

stated that the said case is still pending. In Ex.P-16, her

statement was recorded, wherein she has stated that, at

the time of marriage, it was informed to respondent and

his parents that after marriage, she will continue her

education and she required study materials. Therefore,

requested the police to direct the respondent to provide

the same and after completion of her education, if

respondent invite her, then she would join him.

13. In Exs.P-14 and P-15 the statement of

respondent and his parents was recorded. The contents of

the said statements are similar to the contentions of the

MFA No.7183 OF 2018

respondent in the written statement. In Ex.P-13, which is

the statement of the petitioner, she has not at all made

any allegation of dowry harassment by the respondent.

On the contrary, she has stated that "her mother-in-law

was quarrelling with her on trivial issues. About a month

prior to filing of the complaint, she was suffering from

fever and at that time, neither the respondent nor his

parents provided her treatment, instead they informed her

parents to take her to their place to provide treatment.

After getting treatment at Bengaluru, neither respondent

nor his parents came to receive her to go to respondent's

house, therefore, she remained at Bengaluru."

14. It is further stated by the petitioner that

"on 23.09.2012, respondent, his parents and relatives

went to her parents' house and assaulted on them."

The said evidence is doubtful. If the said incident had

occurred due to dowry harassment, there was no reason

for the petitioner for non-disclosure of all these facts

before the police. In the cross-examination of RW-1

(respondent), she could not get any admissions in her

- 10 -

MFA No.7183 OF 2018

favour to prove that she was subjected to untolerable

harassment by the respondent and his relatives.

15. It is pertinent to note that petitioner did not

examine her parents or any other witnesses to corroborate

her evidence. As discussed by the Family Court, the fact

of dowry harassment was not disclosed by the petitioner

to her parents. As discussed by the Family Court, the said

conduct of the petitioner is unnatural and not reliable.

It also gives an inference that the said demand of dowry

was made with an intention to obtain the decree of

divorce. The evidence of PW-1 does not inspire confidence

to believe it.

16. Under Hindu Law, marriage is revered as a

sacred eternal union, not a civil contract. It is believed to

be a bond created in heaven and fulfilled on earth. In the

presence of sacred fire (Agni Sakshi), the bride and

bridegroom clasp each other's hand and solemnly vow to

uphold the fourfold purposes of life - Dharma, Artha, Kama

and Moksha by reciting the sacred pledge, "Dharmecha,

Arthecha, Kamecha, Mokshecha." They signify their

- 11 -

MFA No.7183 OF 2018

commitment to walk together in righteousness, prosperity,

love and spiritual liberation. Thus, ceremony symbolizes

not just a social union, but a divine partnership ordained

by destiny.

But, unfortunately, in this case, it appears that the

petitioner thought that marriage is a child play. It

appears, she had made allegations just to go to her

parents' house to pursue her education. As per Hindu

Marriage Act, unless, it is established by the petitioner that

she has been subjected to unbearable cruelty at the hands

of respondent and members of his family, she cannot

seek for the relief of divorce.

17. The learned Judge of the Family Court has

discussed in detail about the evidence given by both the

parties and came to a right conclusion. It does not call for

any interference by this Court.

18. Further, the petitioner is entitled for permanent

alimony only if she is able to prove that she is justified in

residing separately. But, in this case, she was unable to

prove the same. In this case, the Family Court rejected

- 12 -

MFA No.7183 OF 2018

the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia)

of Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, the question of awarding

permanent alimony does not arise.

19. For the aforesaid discussion, we answer point

No.1 in the negative and proceed to pass the following :

ORDER

i) The Appeal is dismissed.


           ii) The impugned judgment and decree

      dated    8th    January         2018,     passed      in

      M.C.No.4385/2013,     by       the   IV   Addl.Principal