Karnataka High Court
Meghana W/O. Saikiran Achari vs Saikiran Ramesh Achari on 25 March, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5513-DB
MFA No. 100690 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100690 OF 2024 (MC)
BETWEEN:
MEGHANA W/O. SAIKIRAN ACHARI,
A/A. 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. TELANGAR, TAL. YELLAPUR,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581359.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE AND
SRI VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SAIKIRAN RAMESH ACHARI,
A/A. 30 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT,
R/O. BASAVESHWAR BADAVANE,
NEAR RTO OFFICE, SIRSI,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581359.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
(BY SRI GIRISH YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
RUDRAYYA KALMATH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
KARNATAKA
SECTION 28(1) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE INSTANT APPEAL AND THUS SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 02.11.2023, PASSED IN MATRIMONIAL CASE
NO.94/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIRSI, AND
DISMISS THE ORIGINAL PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5513-DB
MFA No. 100690 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The above appeal is filed by the appellant/wife under
Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551, challenging the
judgment and decree dated 02.11.2023, passed in
M.C.No.94/2023, by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi2.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their status in
the their relationship, for the sake of convenience.
3. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal
are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on
15.04.2022, consequent to which, they lived together in their
marital home for 15 days. Due to various reasons, the parties
started living separately. The respondent/husband filed
M.C.No.94/2023 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the H.M. Act
seeking for divorce. The notice of the said proceedings was
served on the appellant/wife. However, she remained absent
and was placed ex-parte before the Trial Court.
Hereinafter referred to as the 'H.M. Act'
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5513-DB
4. The husband examined himself as PW.1 and an
other witness was examined as PW.2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were
marked in evidence. The Trial Court, by its judgment and
decree dated 02.11.2023, allowed the petition filed by the
husband and dissolved the marriage between the parties by a
decree of divorce. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
5. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri. A.P.
Hegde and Sri. Vijay Meleli for the appellant/wife and learned
counsel Sri.Girish Yadawad for the respondent/husband.
6. It is the contention of the appellant/wife that she
did not have an opportunity to contest the proceedings before
the Trial Court, since she was unable to enter appearance in
the said proceedings. It is further contended that the Trial
Court without adequately considering the nature of allegations
made by the husband and appreciating the material on record
with regard to the same, has mechanically allowed the petition.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent/husband contends that admittedly the notice of the
proceedings before the Trial Court was served on the wife and
she did not contested the proceedings before the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5513-DB
That the allegations made by the husband having remained
un-contraverted, the decree passed by the Trial Court is just
and proper.
8. The submissions of both the learned counsels have
been considered and the material on record have been perused.
The question that arises for consideration is, whether the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to be
interfered with?
9. The relationship between the parties and the
pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court is
undisputed. It is further undisputed that the wife did not
contest the proceedings before the trial Court, since she was
placed ex-parte. It is the contention of the wife that she was
receiving various notices from various Courts and she was in
mental stress and agony. Hence, she remained ex-parte.
10. It is pertinent to note that the proceedings initiated
by the husband before the Trial Court being one for divorce and
valuable rights of parties having been adjudicated before the
Trial Court, without the wife having had an opportunity to
contest the allegations made against her, in the interest of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5513-DB
justice, it is just and proper that the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court be set aside and the wife be afforded
an opportunity to contest the proceedings on certain terms.
11. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is partly allowed.
ii) The judgment and decree dated
02.11.2023 passed in M.C.No.94/2023 by the
Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi is set aside.
iii) The parties shall appear before the Court
of Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi on 22.04.2025
without requirement of any further notice
being issued in this regard.
iv) On the date of appearance, the
appellant/wife shall file her statement of
objections to M.C.No.94/2023.
v) The Trial Court shall conduct further
proceedings in accordance with law by giving
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5513-DB
an opportunity to both the parties to adduce
evidence.
vi) The Trial Court shall adjudicate upon
M.C.No.94/2023 as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
PMP
