Karnataka High Court

K.R. Prasanna vs Smt. Kalamma on 8 January, 2025

                                            -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB
                                                           MFA No.5111/2023




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                          PRESENT
                       THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
                                            AND
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
                MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.5111/2023 (FC)
                BETWEEN:

                K.R.PRASANNA
                S/O RANGAPPAKADAGANUR
                AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
                C/O RANGAPPA
                R/AT QUARTERS NO.A-3
                A.P.M.C.QUARTERS
                NEAR FIRE ENGINE OFFICE
                DAVANAGERE - 577 002                           ...APPELLANT

                (BY SRI NATARAJA B S, ADVOCATE)
                AND:

                SMT.KALAMMA
                D/O MANIGAR KOTRAPPA
Digitally       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
signed by K S   R/AT TALAVAGALU VILLAGE
RENUKAMBA
                HARAPANAHALLI TALUK
Location:
High Court of   BELLARI DISTRICT                             ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka
                (BY DR.S.V.GIRIKUMAR FOR SRI RAVINDRA H T, ADVOCATES)

                     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
                SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET
                ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.05.2023 PASSED BY
                THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAVANAGERE IN M.C.NO.241/2020
                DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
                HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

                     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
                ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
                UNDER:
                                -2-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB
                                                 MFA No.5111/2023



CORAM:     HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
           AND
           HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of

both side, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

2. Challenging dismissal of his petition under Section

12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short), the

petitioner in M.C.No.241/2020 on the file of Family Court,

Davanagere has preferred this appeal.

3. Appellant and the respondent were the petitioner

and the respondent respectively in M.C.No.241/2020 before the

Trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are

referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Trial

Court.

4. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent

was solemnized on 26.04.2020 in the house of the respondent

situated in Harapanahalli which was then in Ballari District.

5. Petitioner filed M.C.No.241/2020 before the Family

Court, Davanagere under Section 12 of the Act seeking

declaration that the marriage of himself and the respondent

solemnized on 26.04.2020 was outcome of coercion and fraud,

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB

therefore the marriage is null and void. He claimed that though

he had not accepted the proposal of respondent and her family

to get her married, on 23.04.2020 her parents and relatives

secured him to her parental house threatening him that if he

does not go, the respondent will commit suicide. On

25.04.2020, they threatened him that if he does not marry her,

he will be killed. They detained him in the house. They had

made preparation for marriage and on next day i.e. on

26.04.2020 they forcefully performed some rituals, made him

to tie mangala sutra around the neck of the respondent. He

further alleged that despite he filing police complaint, under the

influence of the respondent and her family members, the police

did not register the case against her. The marriage was also

not consummated. Thus he sought declaration that marriage is

null and void.

6. Respondent contested the petition denying the

allegations of fraud and coercion. She contended that the

marriage of herself and the petitioner took place on their own

volition. The petitioner was working as Goods Guard at

Chikkajajuru Railway junction. She denied the allegations that

the presence of the petitioner was secured under threat of she

committing suicide and the marriage was performed under

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB

criminal intimidation. She contended that herself and the

petitioner were in touch with each other even before the

marriage, by their consent their marriage was performed and

the marriage was consummated. It was further alleged that at

the time of marriage, gold jewellary and cash was given as

dowry and after marriage, the petitioner and his parents

themselves became abusers and forced her to file the

complaint before Halavagalu police station. Thus she sought

dismissal of the petition.

7. The parties adduced evidence. The Trial Court on

hearing the parties formulated the following points for

consideration:

(i) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent by threatening and playing fraud has made him to tie Mangalasutra to her neck on 26.04.2020 and as such it is not a valid marriage?

(ii) Whether the respondent proves that as per Hindu customs, she has married the petitioner and it is a valid marriage?

(iii) Whether this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try the petition?

(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for?

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB

(v) What Order?

8. The Trial Court without considering the merits of

the case, took up the issue of territorial jurisdiction for

consideration. Relying on the evidence of the petitioner and his

witness, the Trial Court held that the marriage was solemnized

in Harapanahalli. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent

were the resident of Davanagere District. Therefore the said

Court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and

dismissed the petition. Said judgment is challenged in the

above appeal.

9. Sri Nataraja B.S., learned Counsel for the petitioner

submits that at the time of filing of the petition, the petitioner

was residing in railway quarters situated in Davanagere city,

therefore the Trial Court had territorial jurisdiction. Referring to

Section 19 (iv) of the Act, he submits that any petition under

the Act can be filed where the petitioner resides at the time of

presentation of the petition. Therefore the impugned judgment

and order is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

10. Dr.S.V.Girikumar, learned Counsel and

Sri Ravindra H.T, learned Counsel for the respondent submits

that Section 19 (iv) of the Act is not applicable. He submits that

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB

admittedly, marriage took place in Harapanahalli, the

respondent/wife was residing in Harapanahalli. The contention

that the petitioner was residing in Davanagere was also not

proved. He submits that Section 19 (iv) of the Act is applicable

only if other conditions mentioned in the said provision are

satisfied. But they were not satisfied in this case. Therefore the

Trial Court was justified in holding that it has no territorial

jurisdiction.

11. Considering the submissions of both side and on

examining the materials on record, the question that arises for

determination is "Whether the impugned judgment and order

is sustainable in law?"

Analysis

12. The petitioner himself in his petition admitted that

the marriage took place in Harapanahalli and the respondent is

the resident of Harapanahalli town. Section 19 of the Act which

stipulates jurisdiction of the Court for adjudication of any

petition under the Act reads as follows:

"19. Court to which petition shall be presented.- Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction-

(i) the marriage was solemnised, or

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB

(ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or

(iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or (iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the

petition, or

(iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive."

13. Petitioner is relying on Clause iv of Section 19 of

the Act. Reading of the above provision shows that said

provision permits a person to file the petition in place where

he resides, only if either of two following conditions are

satisfied, namely when the petition was filed, the respondent

should be residing in the place outside the territories in which

this Act extends or she should not have been heard of as being

alive for a period of seven years.

14. In this case, it is nobody's case that the Act does

not extend to Harapanahalli where the respondent is residing.

It is not the contention of the petitioner that when the petition

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB

was filed the respondent was not heard of. Therefore he cannot

press into service Section 19 (iv) of the Act to contend that the

petition was rightly instituted before the Trial Court i.e. Family

Court, Davanagere.

15. The next question is on the Trial Court finding that

it had no territorial jurisdiction, whether it could dismiss the

petition. Section 10(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 states

that subject to the provisions of the said Act and Rules,

provisions of CPC shall apply to the suits or the proceedings

filed before the Family Court. Therefore in the present case,

CPC was applicable. In case, if a case is filed before the Court

having no territorial jurisdiction, what shall be done is

prescribed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. It states that, if the

Court finds that the suit is filed before the Court which had no

territorial jurisdiction, then it should return the plaint for

presenting before the proper Court. Therefore the Trial Court

should have returned the petition for presentation before the

proper Court instead of dismissing the same. Hence the appeal

deserves to be allowed in part modifying the impugned order to

that extent. Hence the following:

ORDER

The appeal is partly allowed.

NC: 2025:KHC:631-DB

The finding of the Trial Court that it had no territorial

jurisdiction is confirmed. The order of dismissal of the petition

is hereby set aside.

The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for return of

the plaint for presentation before the proper Court.

To avoid further delay, the parties are hereby directed to

appear before the Trial Court without fail on 10.02.2025

without any further notice. If they fail to appear before the Trial

Court, consequences shall follow.

On such appearance of the parties, the Trial Court shall

return the plaint for presentation before the proper Court with

direction to the parties to appear before such transferee Court

on a particular date.