Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Peer vs Smt Naseem Taj on 11 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45716
RSA No. 233 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 233 OF 2025 (RES)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED PEER
SON OF LATE MOHAMED GHOUSE,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MAGGADAVARA BEEDI,
GUBBI TOWN, GUBBI, TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572126.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.V. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. NASEEM TAJ
WIFE OF MOHAMED PEER, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
Digitally signed WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER,
by DEVIKA M GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
Location: HIGH CHIKKABENDIGERE VILLAGE,
COURT OF HIREBENDIGERE POST,
KARNATAKA SHIGGAV TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT-581110.
PRESENTLY R/AT.
NOW WORKING AS
ASSISTANT TEACHER,
GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
YERRAPALYA, GULLAHALLI POST,
KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. LEELADHAR A.P., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45716
RSA No. 233 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2024
PASSED IN RA NO.9/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.01.2024
PASSED IN OS NO.64/2018 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed against concurrent finding of
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The factual
matrix of the case of plaintiff while seeking the relief of
declaration and injunction praying the defendant to come
and join the company of the plaintiff in the matrimonial
house and lead a happy married life as his wife and
contented that marriage was solemnized on 08.07.2002. It
is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant has left the
matrimonial house on 03.03.2005. Thereafter, 04.03.2015
the defendant along with her brothers assaulted the
NC: 2025:KHC:45716
HC-KAR
plaintiff and his family members and took the signature of
the plaintiff on a blank stamp paper and disclosed that she
is going to write the consent of plaintiff for divorce of
'Talak' on the said stamp paper. The plaintiff submitted
that the said divorce or 'Talak' if any, created by
defendant is not binding upon him as per the
Mohammedan law. In pursuance of the suit summons,
defendant in the written statement admits the marriage
between her and plaintiff and denied the other allegations
made against her in the plaint. It is contented that
marriage was solemnized on 08.07.2002 and her parents
have given cash of Rs.70,000/-, a wrist watch and gold
ornaments to the plaintiff and spent Rs.5,00,000/- on the
marriage. The defendant lead a happy married life only for
about 4 to 5 months. Thereafter, on the instigations of his
mother and sister, started demanding additional dowry
and started ill-treating the defendant. On 03.03.2005 the
plaintiff, his brother and sister poured the kerosene on the
defendant and tried to lit the same using the fire and
NC: 2025:KHC:45716
HC-KAR
hence went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint
and also conciliation was made and plaintiff agreed to give
'Talak' to the defendant and their marriage was dissolved
as per the deed of divorce dated 04.03.2005. It is
contended that this defendant secured government job in
the year 2008. On 09.05.2016, the defendant got married
to one Amjad Pasha and currently living with him and
prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
3. The Trial Court framed the issues and allowed
the parties to lead evidence and also taken note of
admission on the part of P.W.1 that from 2005 to 2016 he
has not made any efforts to bring back his wife. Having
considered the material record and subsequent
developments, the defendant got married after securing
the job and living along with the present husband, the
Trial Court dismissed the suit, the same is challenged
before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.9/2024. The
Appellate Court having re-assessed the grounds which
have been urged in the appeal, formulated the point
NC: 2025:KHC:45716
HC-KAR
whether it requires interference of this Court. Having
considered both oral and documentary evidence as well as
admission on the part of P.W.1 and also the long gap
between 2005 to 2018 till filing of the suit was also taken
note of and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
4. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding,
present second appeal is filed before this Court. The main
contention of the counsel was indicating the substantive
question of law would contend that very dismissal of the
suit by the Trial Court considering the document of Ex.D.1
is erroneous and First Appellate Court also committed an
error in relying upon Ex.D.1 as it is not proved and such
dismissal of the suit is in violation of the settled principles
of Mohammedan law. Both the Courts have committed an
error. When the marriage between the plaintiff and
defendant is undisputed and lived together for some time
and thereafter got separated was also not taken note of
and hence, it requires interference.
NC: 2025:KHC:45716
HC-KAR
5. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
the reasoning given by the Trial Court wherein specific
admission was given by the plaintiff that she was
separated from him on 03.03.2005 and also the defendant
relies upon the document of Ex.D.1 wherein consent was
given for divorce. Apart from that she was secured the job
in the year 2008 and thereafter she got married and living
with present husband. All these factors were taken note of
by both the Courts. The Trial Court and Appellate Court
not only relied upon the document of Ex.D.1 and clear
admission on the part of P.W.1 was extracted in paragraph
No.12 and also detailed discussion was made in paragraph
No.13 and also a case was registered earlier when an
attempt was made to pour the kerosene and lit the fire on
her and criminal case was registered. All these materials
were considered by the Trial Court. When such being the
case, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court
and First Appellate Court in considering the material on
record. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and
NC: 2025:KHC:45716
HC-KAR
frame substantive question of law. The Trial Court with
regard to the marriage is concerned, affirmed the first
issue. But, with regard to the other issue is concerned,
considering the subsequent development, dismissed the
suit and confirmed the same and no error on the order of
the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and
unless perversity is found, question of admitting the
second appeal doesn't arise.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
Second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
