Karnataka High Court
Anuradha vs Sidram on 19 March, 2025
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB
MFA No. 203859 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.203859 OF 2024 (FC)
BETWEEN:
ANURADHA
W/O SIDRAM KUSUR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O: C/O ANNARAYA H. NANDARGI
AT POST BARAGI (HOSUE AT LAND)
TQ. JATH, DIST. SANGLI MAHARASHTRA
...APPELLANT
.
(BY SMT. RAJESHWARI JAMADAR, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed SMT. HEMA L. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE)
by NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
SIDRAM
S/O KALLAPPA KUSAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O: GIRIMALLESHWAR NAGAR,
ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB
MFA No. 203859 of 2024
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19 (1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.04.2024
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT
VIJAYAPURA, IN M.C.NO.245/2023.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN)
This appeal is filed by the appellant - wife under
Section (19) (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by
challenging the decree of divorce granted by the Prl.
Judge, Family Court, at Vijayapura in M.C.No.245/2023
dated 22.04.2024.
02. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant and the respondent and perused the records.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB
03. The case of the appellant - wife is that the
respondent - husband has filed a divorce petition in
M.C.No.245/2023 and a notice has been issued to the
appellant - wife which was returned as address is not
correct. The another notice was said to be sent, which was
returned as refused. Hence, she has placed ex-parte.
Accordingly, the ex-parte divorce decree has been passed.
04. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant - wife that there was no opportunity was
provided properly. The previous case in M.C.No.163/2022,
there was a joint memo was filed by the parties. The
respondent - husband took the appellant - wife to his
home and she has stayed only for 15 days. Thereafter,
once again the appellant - wife has deserted the company
of the respondent - husband. Therefore, without providing
an opportunity, the divorce was granted, she will put to
hardship and loss and great injustice will cause to the
appellant - wife. Hence, prayed for setting aside the order
of the Family Court and provide an opportunity to contest
the matter.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB
05. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent - husband appeared and contended that the
notice has been served on the appellant - wife. She has
refused to receive the said notice. Therefore, the ex-parte
divorce decree was passed. Therefore, an opportunity has
been already given to her and no need to interfere in the
order of the Family Court. Hence, prayed for dismissing
the appeal.
06. Having heard the arguments and perused the
records, the point that would arise for our consideration is
as under:-
Whether the order under challenge call for any
interference.?
07. On perusal of the records, it is not disputed that
previously the parties have approached before the Family
Court in M.C.No.163/2022 for restitution of conjugal
rights. A joint memo has been filed and both of them have
resided together for 15 days. Thereafter, once again the
appellant - wife has deserted the company of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB
respondent - husband. Subsequently, the respondent -
husband has filed a divorce petition by showing the given
address. It is seen from the records that twice time the
notice has been returned as address is incorrect. On 3rd
time the notice was taken by the appellant - wife, which
was returned as refused.
08. The learned counsel for the appellant - wife
contended that when the address itself is insufficient,
twice it was returned, the question of refusing the notice
by the appellant - wife does not arises. Therefore, an
opportunity should be given to the appellant - wife for
contesting the matter.
09. It is not in dispute that the relationship between
the appellant and respondent as wife and husband. On the
previous occasion the respondent - husband has filed a
petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which was settled
between the parties. Such being the case, the divorce
granted by the Family Court, merely on the ground that
the appellant - wife was placed ex-parte, is not proper and
without giving an opportunity to the appellant - wife to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB
contest the case, since there is already reunion between
them and they were resided for 15 days, thereafter both of
them separated. Without giving an opportunity to the
appellant - wife, the ex-parte decree of divorce definitely
cause injustice to the appellant - wife. Therefore, we feel
it proper to remand the matter for considering afresh by
giving an opportunity to the appellant - wife. Accordingly,
the following;
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed.
II. The impugned judgment in M.C.No.245/2023 dated
22.04.2024 passed by the Prl. Judge, Family Court,
at Vijayapura, is hereby set-aside.
III. The case in remitted to the Prl. Judge, Family Court,
at Vijayapura.
IV. The Prl. Judge, Family Court, at Vijayapura is hereby
directed to consider the matter fresh by giving an
opportunity to the appellant - wife by filing
statement of objections and providing any evidence
in her side.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1716-DB
V. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Prl. Judge, Family Court, at Vijayapura, is
directed to dispose of the matter within 06 months
from the date of appearance of both the parties in
the Prl. Judge, Family Court, at Vijayapura.
VI. Both the parties are hereby directed to appear before
the Prl. Judge, Family Court, at Vijayapura without
any further notice by 03.04.2025.
The office is directed to send the copy of this
judgment along with Trial Court records forthwith.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, the
pending I.As. do not survive for consideration, hence, the
same are also disposed of.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT:SI
