Karnataka High Court
Geeta Patel vs Jayanti Lal Patel on 16 June, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB
MFA No. 200225 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200225 OF 2023 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GEETA PATEL
W/O. JAYANTI LAL PATEL,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: H.H.WORK,
R/O: SHOP NO.70, NEW PATEL GUNJ,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON JAYANTI LAL PATEL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
S/O KISHORE PATEL,
KARNATAKA AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.12/7/177/1, BEHIND YAMAHA SHOW
ROOM, GOSHALA ROAD,
RAICHUR AND ALSO,
RESIDING AT NEW PATEL GUNJ,
JALARAM TRADING BACK LINE OF BLOCK NO.1,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB
MFA No. 200225 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
17.12.2022 PASSED IN MC.NO.93/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT RAICHUR
BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL FILED BY THE
APPELLANT/WIFE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE OF AND
EQUITY.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.06.2025,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA)
The present appeal is preferred by the wife assailing
the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2022 in
M.C.No.93/2020 on the file of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as "Family Court"
for short). By the impugned judgment, the Family Court
dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-wife under
Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act" for short) seeking
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB
HC-KAR
decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage solemnized
between the parties on 30.04.2006.
2. The parties herein are referred to as per their
rank before the Family Court.
Brief facts of the case:
3. The marriage between the petitioner and
respondent was solemnized on 30.04.2006 as per the
customs prevailing in their community. From the said
wedlock, a female child namely Hiya was born, who is
presently under the care and custody of the petitioner. It
is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the
marriage, the respondent and his mother subjected her to
physical and mental cruelty without any justifiable cause.
The petitioner alleges that the respondent harbored
unfounded suspicion about her fidelity and character,
particularly when she visited temples and frequently
accused her of infidelity.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB
HC-KAR
4. It is averred that the respondent is addicted to
bad vices and he squanders all his earnings on such
habits. It is also alleged that the respondent and his
mother expressed dissatisfaction upon the birth of a
female child and their acts of cruelty were intensified
thereafter. The petitioner further alleged that her father
had paid an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the respondent
for purchasing a house. However, the said amount was
misappropriated by the respondent and spent on his bad
vices. Further, despite several attempts for reconciliation
through community panchayat and intervention by the
elders, the respondent failed to mend his behavior or
resume the matrimonial life with the wife. She contends
that she was driven out of the matrimonial home by the
respondent and his mother and she is now residing
separately. Further, the marital relationship has
irretrievably broken down leaving no possibility of
reconciliation. Hence, she prayed for decree of divorce by
allowing the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB
HC-KAR
5. The respondent appeared before the Family
Court and filed his statement of objection denying the
averments and allegations made by the petitioner in the
petition. He contended that the petitioner without any just
cause used to instigate quarrels on a daily basis. It is
further averred that the petitioner is running a beauty
parlor by investing the money earned by the respondent.
Further, the petitioner is leading a lavish life and
frequently purchasing the luxurious items, according to
respondent, these actions led to frequent disputes
between them. It is the specific contention that he never
neglected the petitioner nor subjected her to cruelty rather
it was her, who has voluntarily left the matrimonial home
and deserted him without any valid reasons. The
respondent specifically averred that he is willing to lead a
marital life with the petitioner and daughter.
6. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, the Family Court has arrived at
a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish that
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB
HC-KAR
the respondent subjected her to such cruelty as would
reasonably cause an apprehension in her mind that it
would be harmful or injurious for her to continue living
with him. The Family Court further held that the petitioner
did not prove that the respondent had deserted for a
continuous period not less than two years prior to the
presentation of the petition, without any reasonable cause.
It is further observed that no acceptable material evidence
has been produced by the petitioner to show that she had
been subjected to physical or mental cruelty either by the
respondent or by her mother-in-law or that she has been
forcefully thrown out from the matrimonial home. The
Family Court noted that the petitioner, despite alleging
harassment and cruelty, had not lodged any complaint
before the authorities against the respondent and his
mother prior to filing the petition and this, according to the
Family Court weakened her credibility.
7. Further, the Family Court also took note of the
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 (mother of the petitioner-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB
HC-KAR
wife) wherein, it was admitted that the husband and wife
had lived together happily for a period following their
marriage and that respondent has facilitated the opening
of beauty parlor for wife. In light of this, the Family Court
found it difficult to believe the wife's claim about cruelty
and dismissed the petition seeking divorce.
8. Assailing the judgment and decree passed by
the Family Court, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that impugned order is unsustainable both on
facts and in law. It is argued that the Family Court failed
to properly appreciate the evidence on record and ignored
the material aspects while dismissing the petition. It is
specifically contended that the petitioner had lodged a
complaint before the Women Police Station, Raichur,
alleging offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506
of the IPC against the respondent. It is pointed out that
police upon investigation have filed charge sheet before
the jurisdictional Magistrate and the same forms crucial
evidence substantiating petitioner's claim of cruelty. Along
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB
HC-KAR
with the appeal, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.2/2023
under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC
seeking permission to produce additional documents on
record. It is submitted that these documents being
complaint, FIR and charge sheet are material to
substantiate the grounds of cruelty pleaded in the divorce
petition. These documents were not available and could
not be produced at the time of trial and hence prayed that
the said documents to be taken on record and considered
as additional evidence for proper adjudication of the
appeal.
9. It is contended that filing of criminal complaint
and consequent charge sheet after the dismissal of the
divorce petition are themselves indicative of the cruelty
meted out to her. It is submitted that the Family Court
erred in ignoring the cumulative effect of physical and
mental harassment inflicted upon the petitioner and
rejection of the petition by the Family Court warrants
interference.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB
HC-KAR
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
husband opposed the appeal as well as I.A.No.2/2023 filed
by the petitioner seeking permission to produce additional
documents. It is contended that the judgment and decree
of the Family Court is just and proper and based on
thorough appreciation of the evidence on record. It is
submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out any
valid grounds warranting any interference by this Court.
With regard to the complaint dated 16.02.2022, it is
submitted that the same has been lodged after the
dismissal of the divorce petition and is clearly an after
thought, intended to create pressure and to build a case
for divorce at the appellate stage.
11. It is contended that the complaint is false and
motivated, charge sheet filed therein is pending trial and
hence same cannot be treated as conclusive proof of
cruelty. He further submitted that the documents now
sought to be produced by way of I.A.No.2/2023 were not
part of the original pleadings or trial proceedings and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB
HC-KAR
therefore it should not be allowed at the time of appellate
stage. It is argued that the petitioner had sufficient
opportunity during trial to produce any relevant evidence
about cruelty as on that date and having failed to produce
any evidence, the Family Court was justified in holding
that the petitioner has failed to prove the cruelty meted
against her. The counsel for the respondent reiterates that
the respondent is always ready and willing to lead a
peaceful marital life and with the said contention seeks to
dismiss the appeal as well as I.A.No.2/2023.
12. We have considered the contention urged by
the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record, having heard them, the point that
arises for consideration is:
"Whether the judgment and decree of the
Family Court is sustainable and whether
additional documents sought to be produced by
way of I.A.No.2/2023, though subsequent to the
impugned judgment are relevant and necessary
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB
HC-KAR
for a just and complete adjudication of the
controversy, particularly an issue of cruelty?"
13. The relationship between the parties is not in
dispute. It is also not in dispute that they are living
separately. The case of the petitioner is that she was
subjected to cruelty and after the dismissal of the petition,
complaint was filed by her, due to the continued acts of
cruelty, these are the material evidence and are crucial for
proper adjudication. The documents sought to be
produced are charge sheet, complaint and FIR. It is to be
noted that the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and
her mother as P.W.2. Interestingly, the evidence of P.W.2
appears to support the version of the respondent to some
extent, which was taken into account by the Family Court
while dismissing the petition. However, the subsequent
filing of police complaint, submission of charge sheet by
the jurisdictional police on allegation of cruelty, documents
which are placed on record through I.A.No.2/2023,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB
HC-KAR
constitute material evidence that would have bearing on
the issues on hand.
14. The relevance and evidential value of such
documents can only be assessed with oral and
documentary evidence of both the parties and thus we are
of the considered opinion that the matter requires a fresh
consideration by the Family Court in light of the additional
documents and any further evidence by the parties,
accordingly the point framed for consideration is answered
and we pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby is
allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and decree dated 17.12.2022 in
M.C.No.93/2022 passed by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Raichur is set aside.
iii. The matter is remitted back to the Family Court
for fresh consideration in accordance with law
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3092-DB
HC-KAR
after granting an opportunity to both parties to
file additional pleadings and lead further
evidence including production and examination
of the documents submitted in I.A.No.2/2023.
iv. I.A.No.2/2023 is allowed. The additional
documents are taken on record.
v. The Family Court is directed to dispose of the
matter as expeditiously as possible.
vi. The parties are directed to appear before the
Family Court on 04.07.2025 without waiting for
further notice.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
AT
CT:NI
