Karnataka High Court
Anita vs Sharanabasappa on 24 June, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB
MFA No. 201595 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH 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.201595 OF 2024 (FC)
BETWEEN:
ANITA
W/O SHARANABASAPPA CHANDANKERI
D/O LATE MALKAPPA BANDARWAD,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O H.NO.149, BEHIND DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX,
INDIRA NAGAR,
KALABURAGI -585 103.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by
BASALINGAPPA (BY SMT. VIJAYA MALLIKARJUNAPPA PATIL, ADVOCATE)
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
SHARANABASAPPA
S/O LATE BASAVARAJ CHANDANKERI,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: VAIJAPUR,
TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 302.
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB
MFA No. 201595 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN
M.C.NO.329/2021 DATED 11-08-2023 PASSED BY PRL. JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, AT KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA)
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in
M.C.No.329/2021 dated 11.08.2023, on the file of the
Principal Judge, Family Court at Kalaburagi (hereinafter
referred to as "Family Court" for short), the wife is in this
appeal.
2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the
Family Court dismissed the petition filed by the wife under
Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
("Act" for short) seeking dissolution of marriage. However,
the Family Court granted a decree of judicial separation for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB
HC-KAR
a period of three years and further directed that if the
parties failed to reconcile during that period, then either of
the party can proceed as provided under Section 13(1A)(i)
of the Act.
Brief facts:
3. The marriage between the appellant-wife and
the respondent-husband was solemnized on 28.04.2007 as
per the custom prevailing in their community. From the
wedlock, the couple have two children. The case of the
appellant before the Family Court was that, she was
subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the
respondent. It was alleged that the respondent is addicted
to alcohol and failed in his duty to maintain the family. The
appellant is entirely dependent on her parents for her and
her children's financial needs. Even the expenses related
to child birth and upbringing of the children have been
borne by her parents. It is alleged that under the influence
of alcohol, respondent frequently quarreled with her and
upon her attempt to reason with him, assaulted her
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB
HC-KAR
physically, often at the instigation of his mother. It is also
alleged that he persistently demanded dowry, inciting
debts incurred due to his bad habits and thrown her from
the matrimonial house.
4. The respondent has denied all the allegations
made by the petitioner and contended that the petitioner
has voluntarily left the matrimonial home and that he has
not subjected her to any cruelty as alleged. According to
the respondent, the petitioner did approach him to resume
cohabitation and lead a normal life, however, her parents
were against the marriage. It is categorically contended
that he has been providing all the necessary support and
care for her and the children and he categorically denied
all the allegations of cruelty, dowry demand and neglect as
made by the petitioner in her petition.
5. Before the Family Court, the appellant
examined herself as PW.1, one witness as PW.2 and got
marked documents as Exs.P1 to P3. The respondent
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB
HC-KAR
examined himself as RW.1, two witnesses as RW.2 and
RW.3 and marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R.2.
6. The Family Court after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence, rejected the petition for dissolution
of marriage. It observed that although the appellant-wife
alleged that the respondent-husband has demanded dowry
and even attempted to take her life by throttling, she has
not lodged any police complaint to that effect. The Family
Court further observed that while the petitioner claim to
have made several attempts to reconcile, including visits
to the respondent's house, during which he alleged to
have refused to accept her back, she had not issued any
notice or initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal
rights. The Family Court opined that if the petitioner really
interested in resuming matrimonial life, she could have
pursued legal remedies accordingly.
7. The Family Court further observed that the
petitioner has failed to establish her allegation that the
respondent has been addicted to bad vices or he has failed
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB
HC-KAR
to provide maintenance and in the absence of any
sufficient material to establish cruelty, the Family Court
dismissed the petition for divorce. However, it granted a
decree of judicial separation for a period of three years
and further held that if the parties failed to co-operate and
resume cohabitation within that period, either party would
be entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings under
Section 13(1A)(i) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of
the Family Court, the wife is in the present appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-wife. The respondent though served with a
notice has chosen to remain absent.
9. Upon careful examination of the pleadings,
evidence and findings of the Family Court, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the Family Court has rightly
dismissed the petition for divorce filed under Section
13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant would contend that several
genuine efforts to resume cohabitation and preserve the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB
HC-KAR
marriage was made by the appellant, the respondent
refused to accept her back and this aspect was not
considered by the Family Court. It is argued by the
appellant's counsel that decree for judicial separation for
three years granted by the Family Court is unwarranted,
given the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the
respondent's continued refusal to resume matrimonial life
and in these circumstances a divorce under Section
13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act is justified.
10. The appellant though has alleged cruelty,
including physical assault, dowry demands and neglect,
there is no corroborative evidence or testimony from an
independent witness regarding the allegations. The
allegations though are serious in nature has been
remained unsubstantiated. We cannot proceed on mere
allegation without adequate proof, especially when the
burden of proof lies on the petitioner in matrimonial
dispute. When applying the concept of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage, the Courts have to be cautious in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB
HC-KAR
applying this doctrine, especially where attempts for
reconciliation have not been fully exhausted or where one
party expresses willingness to resume marital life.
11. It is also to be noted that the appellant herself
admitted to have made multiple efforts to resume
matrimonial relationship, including the visits to her
matrimonial house. When these acts are considered, it
negates the allegation of desertion, as they indicate an
intention of her to preserve the marriage. The Family
Court after appreciating the strained relationship between
the parties found it appropriate to grant judicial separation
for a period of three years rather than a decree of
immediate divorce. This approach reflects keeping the
door open for reconciliation, especially in light of the
children involved. Judicial separation, being a recognized
statutory remedy, allows both parties time and space to
reflect on the future of their relationship. Further, it has
been directed by the Family Court that if cohabitation is
not resumed within the stipulated time, either party
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3346-DB
HC-KAR
remains free to initiate divorce proceedings under Section
13(1A)(i) of the Act. We find no perversity or illegality in
the order passed by the Family Court and accordingly we
pass the following order:
ORDER
i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby
dismissed.
ii. The judgment and decree dated 11.08.2023
in M.C.No.329/2021 passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi stands
confirmed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
AT
CT:NI
