Karnataka High Court

Sri. Raghavendra Shetty vs Smt. Bhavya Shetty on 3 November, 2025

                                           -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:44017-DB
                                                     MFA No. 6308 of 2017
                                                 C/W MFA No. 5953 of 2017

                HC-KAR




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                       DATED THIS THE 3RD 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. 6308 OF 2017 (FC-)
                                          C/W
                MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5953 OF 2017 (FC)

                IN MFA No. 6308/2017
                BETWEEN:

                SRI.RAGHAVENDRA SHETTY,
                AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
                S/O SRI JAYARAM SHETTY,
                R/O LINGARAJ PRESS ROAD,
                NAYAK COMPOUND, MALMADDI,
                DHARWAD-580 001.
                                                              ...APPELLANT
                (BY SRI.RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by K G   AND:
RENUKAMBA
Location:       SMT. BHAVYA SHETTY,
HIGH COURT
OF              AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
KARNATAKA       D/O SRI MOHAN SHETTY
                W/O SRI RAGHAVENDRA SHETTY,
                R/O DOOR NO.5-71/7 NADDAL,
                GOKARNA ROAD, KULASHEKARA,
                MANGALURU-575 001.
                                                            ...RESPONDENT
                (BY SMT.D.A.VISMAYA., ADVOCATE FOR
                    SRI.P.N.HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
                          -2-
                                   NC: 2025:KHC:44017-DB
                                   MFA No. 6308 of 2017
                               C/W MFA No. 5953 of 2017

HC-KAR




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.19(1) OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 21.06.2017 PASSED IN M.C.NO.353/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K. MANGALURU,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.9 OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, SEEKING RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL
RIGHTS.


IN MFA NO. 5953/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI.RAGHAVENDRA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O SRI.JAYARAM SHETTY,
R/O LINGARAJ PRESS ROAD,
NAYAK COMPOUND, MALMADDI,
DHARWAD-580 001.
                                        ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

AND:
SMT. BHAVYA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
D/O SRI. MOHAN SHETTY,
W/O SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SHETTY,
R/O DOOR NO.5-71/7, NADDAL,
GOKARNA ROAD, KULASHEKARA,
MANGALURU-575 001.
                                      ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.D.A.VISMAYA., ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI.P.N.HEGDE ., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)

    THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 21.06.2017 PASSED IN M.C.NO.115/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K.,
MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S
13(1)(ia) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
                                     -3-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:44017-DB
                                              MFA No. 6308 of 2017
                                          C/W MFA No. 5953 of 2017

    HC-KAR




     THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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)

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

Ms. Vismaya appearing for the respondent.

2. Appeal No. 6308/2017 has been filed

challenging the decree and common judgment dated

21.06.2017 passed by the Family Court, D.K. Mangalore in

M.C.No.353/2015 whereby the petition filed by the

husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551

was dismissed. MFA No.5953/2017 has been filed seeking

to set aside the aforesaid decree and the common

judgment dated 21.06.2017 passed by the Principal Judge,

Family Court, D.K. Mangalore in M.C.No.115/2015

whereby the petition filed by the wife under Section

13(1)(ia) of the HM Act was allowed and the husband was

HM Act

NC: 2025:KHC:44017-DB

HC-KAR

directed to pay a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs as permanent

alimony to the child.

3. The wife's case was that their marriage was

solemnised on 23.05.2005 at RNS Kalyana Mantap, Opp.

Glass House, Hubli. Thereafter the marriage came to be

registered before Registrar of Marriages at Dharwad on

14.06.2005. It was stated that the wife's father-in-law had

taken Rs.1.00 lakh from the petitioner stating that he had

not taken any dowry for the marriage. This amount was

paid from the salary of the wife. The gold ornaments

belonging to the wife was pledged by the husband after

three weeks from the date of marriage. Since wife got

employed in Bengaluru she went to Bengaluru, the

husband also went to Bengaluru and joined the wife and

started to stay with her. Thereafter, a child was born and

he was named as Eshaan Shetty.

4. The allegations against the husband for having

the habit of consuming alcohol and chewing gutka and

NC: 2025:KHC:44017-DB

HC-KAR

quarreling with the wife for silly reasons was alleged. The

husband was not interested to take care of the wife and

her child. However, the wife used to go to her matrimonial

home every month twice or thrice. Subsequently wife left

her job in a company in April 2006 and joined Infosys in

Bengaluru and was transferred to Mangaluru in the month

of December 2011. It is alleged that the husband assured

the wife that he would join her at Mangaluru and therefore

the wife took a residential house on rent. However, the

husband said that he will join the wife later. Allegation was

made that the husband was only interested in the salary of

the wife instead of taking care of her and her child. It is

stated that the wife refused to pay money to the

respondent as she required money for her and her child.

The husband directed the wife to quit the job and

threatened that he would take the custody of the child by

force. The wife then filed a petition under the provisions of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, in

M.C.No.29/2015 in the Court of JMFC (III), Mangalore, in

NC: 2025:KHC:44017-DB

HC-KAR

which an interim order was granted on 03.03.2015.

Despite the interim order the husband came to the

parental house of the wife and tried to take the child

forcibly. Intervention of the police was necessitated.

5. The husband filed objections denying the

averments made in the petition. He stated that he is ready

and willing to lead a happy marital life with the wife. He

filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights but the

wife was not cooperative and adamantly trying to avoid

the husband. It was contended that the husband and his

father are engaged in hotel business since more than 18

years which has earned goodwill and daily turnover of the

hotel is in thousands. Since the wife had availed of some

educational loan and had to repay the loan, the husband

allowed the wife to continue the job in Bengaluru. He used

to go all the way from Dharwad to Bengaluru to spend two

to three days every week with the wife. She used to

quarrel with him and asked him to stop hotel business or

to avoid his parents and insisted him to stay at Bengaluru.

NC: 2025:KHC:44017-DB

HC-KAR

Since the father of the respondent had a massive heart

attack in the year 2007, he had to take up the entire

responsibility of running the business, also to look after

the wife at Bengaluru, the health of his father and do

regular house hold work. But the wife did not leave her

job. Various other allegations were made.

6. The Family Court framed the following points

for consideration:

1. Whether the petitioner in M.C.No.115/2015 is entitled for the relief of dissolution of marriage as prayed in the petition?

2. Whether the petitioner in M.C.No.115/2015 is entitled for custody of the child?

3. Whether the petitioner in M.C.No.115/2015 is entitled for permanent alimony as prayed for?

4. Whether the respondent-husband is entitled for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights as prayed in M.C.No.353/2015?

5. What Order?

7. These points were answered as follows:

Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: in the Affirmative Point No.3: Partly in the Affirmative Point No.4: In the Negative Point No.5: As per the final order

8. It appears from perusal of the so called reasons

assigned by the Family Court, that after narrating the case

NC: 2025:KHC:44017-DB

HC-KAR

of the parties and parts of the evidence, the Court went on

to record the contention of learned counsel for the

respondent and relying upon certain decisions answered

the points framed for its consideration and passed the

common judgment and the separate decrees which are

under challenge in the instant appeal. There is no

consideration or analysis of the evidence. A judgment of

the Apex Court had been relied upon mechanically without