Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Leela W/O Nijaguneppa ... vs Mr. Nijagungeppa S/O Nagappa ... on 17 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4876
RPFC No. 100147 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100147 OF 2023 (-)
BETWEEN:
MRS. LEELA
W/O. NIJAGUNNEPPA SHIVABASANNAVAR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. AT POST BYAHATTI, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580023.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. KAVITA S. JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. NIJAGUNEPPA
S/O. NAGAPPA SHIVABASANNAVAR,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE IN RAILWAY,
R/O. AT POST BYAHATTI, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580023.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET
SHELAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.04.2023 IN
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
CRIM.MISC.185/2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT
HUBBALLI AND ALLOW THE PETITION IN CRIM. MISC.185/2019 AS
PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4876
RPFC No. 100147 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-wife challenging the
order dated 11.04.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.185/2019 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi (for short "the Family
Court") dismissing the petition.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that the
marriage between petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband
was solemnized on 15.04.2009 and same was registered on
27.08.2009. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that she is a
divorcee and having two children from her first marriage. It is
also stated in the petition that the petitioner-wife has lead
marital life with respondent-husband for a period of 8 years
and no issues are born in their wedlock. It is also stated in the
petition that the respondent-husband used to torture the
petitioner-wife physically and mentally and also not taking care
of the needs of the petitioner-wife and therefore, the petitioner-
wife has filed Crl.Misc.No.185/2019 seeking maintenance from
the respondent-husband.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4876
3.1. After service of notice, the respondent-husband
entered appearance and filed statement of objections admitting
the relationship with the petitioner-wife. The respondent-
husband has filed M.C.No.183/2019 seeking restitution of
conjugal rights and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the
petition.
3.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on
record, by its order dated 11.04.2023 dismissed the petition on
the ground that the petitioner-wife herself has left the
matrimonial home. Hence, this petition is filed by the
petitioner.
4. I have heard Smt. Kavitha S Jadhav, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife and Smt. Nandini B
Somapur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
husband.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner-wife that the Family Court has committed an
error in dismissing the petition despite the fact that the
petitioner-wife has raised a plea that the respondent-husband
was physically and mentally harassing the petitioner-wife and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4876
therefore, the reasons assigned by the Family Court requires to
be interfered with in this petition.
6. Per contra, Smt. Nandini B Somapur, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-husband sought to justify
the impugned order passed by the Family Court and further
contended that the respondent-husband has filed
M.C.No.181/2024 seeking dissolution of marriage and the said
petition is pending consideration before the competent Family
Court and accordingly, sought to justify the impugned order
passed by the Family Court.
7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the
marriage between the petitioner-wife with the respondent was
solemnized on 15.04.2009. It is also admitted by the petitioner
herein that she was a divorcee having two children from her
first marriage. On careful examination of the finding recorded
by the Family Court would indicate that the Family Court has
dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner-wife is
living separately from the respondent-husband without cause.
The said reason assigned by the Family Court cannot be
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4876
accepted on the sole ground that the petitioner-wife in the
pleadings itself has stated that she was subjected to physical
and mental harassment by the respondent-husband. In that
view of the matter, it is the duty of the Family Court to consider
the plea of the parties in entirety and to pass an order on
merits. Accordingly, it is a fit case to remand the matter to the
Family Court for fresh consideration in the light of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha
and another1 and in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh v.
Meena and others2. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 11.04.2023 in
Crl.Misc.No.185/2019 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi is
hereby set aside and the matter is
remanded to the Family Court for fresh
consideration.
(2021) 2 SCC 324
(2015) 6 SCC 353
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4876
iii) In order to avoid further delay in the
matter, since the parties are represented
through their counsel, the parties are
directed to appear before the Family Court
on 21.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m.
iv) It is open for the parties to lead evidence, if
any, in the matter.
v) In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and are disposed
of accordingly.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
CT-MCK
