Karnataka High Court
Sri T B Jayanna vs Smt J P Bharathi on 27 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49366-DB
MFA No. 4662 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH 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. 4662 OF 2018 (MC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. T B JAYANNA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
AGRICUTLURIST
R/O G THIMMAPURA VILLAGE
KADURAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK - 560083
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. B REDDI ANANYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by K G SMT. J P BHARATHI
RENUKAMBA
W/O T B JAYANNA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
COURT OF R/O JAVOOR VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI,
KARNATAKA TARIKERE TALUK - 577 145
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S SHIVAPRASAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09/03/2018, PASSED
IN MC NO.30/14, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KADUR, DISMISSING THE PETITION U/SEC.13(ib) OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49366-DB
MFA No. 4662 of 2018
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed for setting aside the judgment
and decree dated 09.03.2018, wrongly mentioned as
09.03.2014 in the M.F.A. passed by the Senior Civil Judge,
Kadur in M.C No.30/2014. In the aforesaid matrimonial case,
the petitioner / appellant, who is the husband filed a petition
for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
19551 to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage
solemnized between him and the respondent on 14.07.1989. It
was stated in the petition that the respondent had not
discharged her duties as a dutiful Hindu woman and was not
allowing the petitioner to lead his conjugal life and also there is
no co-habitation between them. When the things stood thus,
the respondent told that she would go to her parent's house at
Act
NC: 2025:KHC:49366-DB
HC-KAR
Javoor village and she left the petitioner's house, but did not
return. When the petitioner asked the respondent to come to
his house, she told that she is ill and will return after gaining
health. But the petitioner learnt that there was no health
problem to her and she was evading to join the petitioner. The
petition for divorce was filed on 04.04.2014, in which it was
further stated that the cause of action for the petition arose on
and from 01.03.2002 when the respondent left the petitioner's
house stating that she would not come to his house.
3. The respondent appeared through her counsel and
filed objection admitting her marriage to the petitioner. Other
allegations were denied. She stated that the petitioner was not
discharging his duties as a dutiful husband. He was not
providing food and other necessities to the respondent and was
not showing any interest towards the respondent. The
respondent stated that she was ready to discharge her duties
as a dutiful wife and was also ready to lead marital life with the
petitioner but the petitioner himself is not allowing her to lead
marital life.
NC: 2025:KHC:49366-DB
HC-KAR
4. During the course of evidence, the petitioner
examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3
documents. The respondent examined herself as RW.1 and got
marked four documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. The following points
arose for determination of the trial Court:
"1. Whether the petitioner / husband proves that, the
respondent / wife having withdrawn herself from
his society staying way from him by deserting him
without any justifiable cause or reasons and hence
she has committed matrimonial offence of desertion
and hence he is entitled to decree of divorce on the
ground of desertion?
2. What order?"
5. The findings of the Court were as follows:
"Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : As per the final orders."
6. In the reasons that are mentioned in the judgment,
it is stated that in the cross-examination of the petitioner, it
was also suggested that the respondent was ready to join the
petitioner, but the petitioner himself deposed that he was not
ready to take the respondent to his marital house. The trial
Court went on to consider certain documents which indicated
NC: 2025:KHC:49366-DB
HC-KAR
that the petitioner had married another lady by the name of
Smt. B.R. Rajini and they had one daughter by the name of
Shamita. In view of the aforesaid, the petition was dismissed
after answering the point No.1 in the negative. Though we find
that the requirement for grant of divorce as required under the
provision of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act have not been
addressed by the trial Court, when we asked the learned
counsel for the appellant to demonstrate the date of her
separation, she relied upon the petition filed by the petitioner
under Section 13(1)(1b) of the Act, particularly para No.9
thereof which reflects the cause of action had arisen on
01.03.2002 when the respondent left the house of the
petitioner stating that she would not come back to the house of
the petitioner.
7. We have perused the record and we find that
though in para No.9 of the petition, the date of cause of action
having arisen is mentioned as 01.03.2002, however in the
examination-in-chief of the petitioner submitted by way of an
affidavit on 02.11.2015 there is no statement or indication as
to the date on which the respondent deserted the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:49366-DB
HC-KAR
For this reason, we find that the requirement of Section
13(1)(ib) of the Act is not fulfilled. Therefore, this appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
KG
