Karnataka High Court
Smt Renuka W/O Ravindra Hattennavar vs Shri Ravindra S/O Nagappa Hattennavar on 14 November, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
MFA No.103757/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103757 OF 2023
BETWEEN
SMT. RENUKA W/O. RAVINDRA HATTENNAVAR
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. SHETTAPA KANNDHARE
(MADDI HARIJAN KERI)
TELASANG TALUKA. ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591265
...APPELANT
(BY SRI VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
AND
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.11.15
SHRI RAVINDRA S/O. NAGAPPA
10:44:59 +0530
HATTENNAVAR
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED SOLIDER,
R/O. DEVARAJ NAGAR, TERDAL
TAL. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587315.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,
1955, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
-2-
MFA No.103757/2023
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.08.2022, PASSED IN
MATRIMONIAL CASE NO.01/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, AT
BANAHATTI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
05.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
This appeal is filed by appellant/wife under Sec. 28 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying for setting aside the
judgment and decree passed in MC No.1/2020 dated
17.08.2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Banahatti and for such other reliefs.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the
parties will be referred with their ranks, as they were before
the Trial Court.
3. Petitioner-husband has filed petition under Sec. 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying for restitution of
conjugal rights.
4. The case of petitioner before trial Court in
nutshell is that marriage of petitioner and respondent was
solemnized on 24.07.2012 as per Hindu rituals and customs
prevailing in their community at Sri Yellamma Devi Temple
at Talassanga village. Thereafter, both petitioner and
respondent led happy marital life for 8 years; from the
wedlock, they got a daughter and a son by name Diksha
and Dhiraj. Thereafter, respondent started troubling the old
aged parents of petitioner and not performing her day to
day work. He advised her several times, but she did not
mend her attitude. On the other hand, she had been to her
parental house without any reasons and without informing
him. Even after convening panchayats several times and
advice from the elders, respondent has not changed her
behaviour and not come back to live with petitioner. He
further pleaded that he had married with one Asha alias
Savakka and got two children from her and then he has
obtained divorce from her and after obtaining divorce, he
married the respondent. Now, respondent neglected to look
after the children and old aged parents of petitioner.
Petitioner is ready to take care and responsibility of
respondent. But at the instigation of her parents and others,
she is not ready to join him. Hence, the petition for
appropriate reliefs.
5. After service of notice, respondent appeared
through her counsel and filed her objections to main
petition wherein she admitted the marital relationship
between her and the petitioner and also two children born
to them. She has denied all other averments made in the
petition regarding her behaviour. On the other hand, she
contended that it is petitioner who is alcoholic and not
maintaining her and her children properly and always
quarreling with her and was not making any arrangement
for their livelihood. Hence, she has also filed an application
for interim maintenance of ₹.10,000/- and thus, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
6. After recording evidence of petitioner and
marking documents on his behalf, the learned trial Judge
has passed the judgment directing respondent to join the
petitioner to lead marital life by allowing the petition for
restitution of conjugal rights.
7. Aggrieved by the same, respondent-appellant
has filed the present appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for appellant
- Sri Venkatesh M. Kharvi and learned counsel for
respondent Sri S.C. Bhuti and perused the appeal papers.
9. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that
appellant is the wife of petitioner and she has filed her
detailed objection statement. However, no opportunity is
given to her to contest the petition. Immediately after filing
the affidavit evidence by petitioner on next date of hearing,
cross-examination was taken as nil; respondent evidence
was taken as nil and immediately judgment was
pronounced. Thus, no opportunity was given to her to
contest the petition.
10. Learned counsel for respondent Sri S.C. Bhuti
would submit that it is only because of the attitude of
petitioner, she voluntarily left the company of petitioner and
there was no reasonable excuse for her to leave the
company. The trial Court has given opportunity to her, but
there was no representation from her side. Hence, the
cross-examination of petitioner and evidence of respondent
was taken as nil by trial Court. Hence, there is no need for
interference on the aforesaid judgment. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of appeal.
11. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel
for appellant and respondent and on perusal of appeal
papers with trial Court records, the following points would
arise for our consideration in this appeal:-
"i) Whether the appellant proves that the learned
trial Judge has not given proper opportunity to
appellant-respondent to establish her defence and it
requires interference?"
ii) Whether the remand of the matter to the trial
Court is required?
iii) What order?"
12. Our finding on point Nos.1 and 2 is in
"affirmative" for the following reasons:-
Point Nos.1 and 2: These points are considered
together as they require common discussion.
13. The admitted facts of the case are that petitioner
and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage
was solemnized on 24.07.2012, as per the customs
prevailing in their community at Sri Yallammadevi Temple in
Telasanga village; they led marital life for about 8 years and
they have got a daughter and son by name Diksha and
Dhiraj.
14. The petitioner has produced the certified copy of
order passed in MC No.36/2011 at Ex.P.1, which reveals
that the marriage of petitioner with one Asha which was
solemnized on 23.04.2004 was dissolved by decree of
divorce dated 25.01.2012. After dissolution of said
marriage, he married the appellant on 24.07.2012.
15. The trial Court records and order sheet reveals
that the petitioner has filed his affidavit evidence on
08.07.2022; then it was posted to 29.07.2022; on which
date, he has produced certain documents at Exs.P.1 to
P.10; on the same day, the cross-examination of petitioner
was taken as nil as the advocate appearing for respondent
was absent. Immediately, on next date of hearing on
03.08.2022, respondent's evidence was taken as nil and
posted to judgment and judgment was pronounced on
17.08.2022.
16. The above facts reveal that no proper
opportunity is given to the appellant/wife to contest the
petition filed against her.
17. The trial Court, except considering the self-
serving testimony of the petitioner, has not considered any
other evidence and erroneously come to the conclusion that
respondent has left the company of petitioner without any
reasonable excuse. It is only by establishing the fact that
the wife, without lawful ground has withdrawn from the
society of the husband or neglected to perform the
obligations imposed by law or by the contract of marriage,
the husband would be entitled to get the decree of
restitution of conjugal rights. However, without establishing
any of the above facts, the decree of restitution of conjugal
rights was granted in favour of husband.
18. The above proceedings of trial Court reveal that
no opportunity was given to appellant/wife to contest the
petition and erroneously granted the decree casually. The
relationship between husband and wife is very delicate and
the reasons for dispute would be known to them only. Thus,
without examining or enquiring the respondent, granting a
decree under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the
trial Court is erroneous and it requires interference.
19. Considering all the above facts, we are of the
opinion that matter is to be remitted back to trial Court for
fresh disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, point
Nos.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative.
20. Point No.3 - In view of findings on point Nos.1
and 2, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
i) Appeal filed under Sec. 28 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 is allowed.
- 10 -
ii) The judgment and decree passed in MC
No.1/2020 dated 17.08.2022 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banhatti is
hereby set aside and the matter is remanded
to the trial Court for fresh consideration.
iii) Parties to appeal are hereby directed to
appear before trial Court without Court
notice on 15.12.2025 at 11 a.m.
iv) The trial Court shall provide opportunity to
both the appellant and the respondent i.e.,
the wife and husband to lead evidence and
to cross-examine each other.
v) All the contentions of both parties are left
open.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
Vmb
CT-CMU, LIST NO.:
