Karnataka High Court
V Manjunatha vs Smt B Neetha on 14 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB
MFA No. 4819 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 4819 OF 2018 (MC)
BETWEEN:
1. V. MANJUNATHA,
S/O. LATE. VELUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT. 4TH CROSS,
BEHIND PUSPANJALI TALKIES,
VISWANATH COLONY,
HULIYAR ROAD, HIRIYUR TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577598.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI VEERESHA E., ADVOCATE)
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SMT. B. NEETHA,
W/O. V. MANJUNATHA,
D/O. K. THANGAVELU,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT. C/O. SUGUNA POULTRY,
KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577598.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE(ABSENT))
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB
MFA No. 4819 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 17.02.2018 PASSED IN M.C.No.20/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIRIYUR, REJECTING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment
and decree dated 17.02.2018 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur in M.C. No.20/2015. The
appellant is the petitioner before the trial Court.
2. The case of the appellant was that he got
married to the respondent on 01.09.2011 at Srimathi
Thulasi B Narayanarao Kalyana Mantapa, Hiriyur according
to the rites and customs prevailing in their community.
Thereafter, they led marital life for two years, during
which the respondent gave birth to one child. Thereafter,
NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB
HC-KAR
the respondent changed her attitude towards the appellant
and his mother and she never had love and affection
towards the appellant, always showing neglecting attitude.
It was stated that the respondent made the life of the
appellant miserable. The respondent used to act brutally
and used to shout loudly stating that she does not want to
live with the appellant. The respondent is not willing to
join the company of the appellant.
3. In response to the notice, the respondent
appeared through counsel but failed to file objections
before the trial Court. The petitioner examined himself as
PW.1 and produced his wedding card which was marked as
Ex.P1. The respondent did not cross-examine the PW.1 nor
did she lead evidence.
4. The following points were framed for
consideration by the Court.
"1. Whether the petitioner makes out grounds
to grant decree of divorce?
2. What Order?"
NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB
HC-KAR
5. The findings on the points were as follows:
"Point No.1:- In the Negative.
Point No.2:- As per final order for following"
6. The trial Court observed that the petitioner
failed to lead evidence of any supporting witnesses to
prove the illegal acts of the respondent. The trial Court
noted that no doubt it is an internal matter between the
parties, but the same by itself cannot be a ground to grant
divorce. The allegations of desertion or cruelty or mental
torture, are required to be proved by the petitioner. The
trial Court noted that only vague allegations have been
made and therefore, the divorce cannot be granted. It was
further noted that allegation of illicit relation was also
raised by the petitioner but no supportive evidence or
document was laid. Accordingly, the point No.1 was
answered in the negative and the petition filed by the
petitioner under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 19551 was rejected.
the Act
NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB
HC-KAR
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated
that the misconduct and suspicious behaviour of the
respondent was clearly pleaded in the petition for divorce,
which was also proved by the examination-in-chief of the
appellant. It is stated that despite the respondent not
leading evidence nor cross-examining the appellant, the
application for divorce ought to have been allowed. It is
stated that for nearly thirteen years, the parties have been
living separately and therefore, no useful purpose would
be served in continuing with the marriage.
8. We have perused the record and heard the
learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears for the
respondent.
9. We are in agreement with the observation
made by the trial Court that the allegations made in the
petition were non-specific and so was the
examination-in-chief of the appellant. On the basis of
vague allegations or without there being any specific
NC: 2025:KHC:46660-DB
HC-KAR
allegation, grant of a decree of divorce cannot be rendered
a perfunctory exercise by a Court.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the instant
case, we uphold the judgment and decree of the trial
Court and dismiss this appeal.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
