A.S. Darshan Bin A N Shivanand vs Amrutha Maladad @ Amrutha W/O A S Darshan
2025 Latest Caselaw 9536 Kant

Karnataka High Court

A.S. Darshan Bin A N Shivanand vs Amrutha Maladad @ Amrutha W/O A S Darshan on 29 October, 2025

Author: S G Pandit

Bench: S G Pandit

                                                -1-
                                                           MFA No.101284/2016
                                                      C/W. MFA No.101122/2016



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                     DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                                        PRESENT

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
                                          AND
                        THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101284 OF 2016

                                          C/W

                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101122 OF 2016


                    IN MFA NO. 101284/2016

                    BETWEEN:

                    A.S. DARSHAN S/O. SHIVANAND
                    AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                    R/O. ALUR, DIST: HASSAN-589655.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT

                    (BY SRI. JAGADISHGOUDA PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
M
                    AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.10.31
                    SMT. AMRUTHA W/O. A.S. DARSHAN
10:51:08 +0530
                    AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                    R/O. C/O. MALLIKARJUN F. MALDAD,
                    BEHIND SHANTI TALKIES,
                    MASARI ROAD, GADAG-584211.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT

                    (BY SRI. M.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                         THIS MFA FILED U/S.19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT
                    1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
                    DATED:20.02.2016,   PASSED    IN   MATRIMONIAL    CASE
                            -2-
                                      MFA No.101284/2016
                                 C/W. MFA No.101122/2016



NO.90/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY
COURT, GADAG, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS BE
DISMISSED AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN MFA NO.101122/2016

BETWEEN:

A.S. DARSHAN BIN. A.N. SHIVANAND
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: ALUR-589 655,
DIST: HASSAN.
                                               ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. JAGADISHGOUDA PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. AMRUTHA MALADAD @
SMT. AMRUTHA W/O. A.S. DARSHAN
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O: C/O. MALLIKARJUN F. MALDAD
BEHIND SHANTI TALKIES,
MASARI ROAD, GADAG-584 211.
                                             ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MFA FILED U/S.19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT,
1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 20.02.2016 PASSED IN MC NO.109/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG, AND THE
PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE
MARRIAGE AND FOR GRANT OF DIVORCE BE ALLOWED, AND
THIS APPEAL E ALLOWED WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
14.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              -3-
                                        MFA No.101284/2016
                                   C/W. MFA No.101122/2016




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.)

MFA No.101284/2016 is filed under Sec.19(1) of the

Family Courts Act, 1984, praying for setting aside the

judgment and decree dated 20.02.2016 passed in MC

No.90/2015 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court,

Gadag in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and to

dismiss the said petition by allowing this appeal with costs

throughout.

2. MFA No.101122/2016 is filed under Sec.19(1) of

the Family Courts Act, 1984, praying for setting aside the

judgment and decree dated 22.02.2016 passed in MC

No.109/2015 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag in

a petition for dissolution of marriage and to grant decree of

divorce by allowing this appeal with costs throughout.

3. Both these appeals arise out of common

judgment passed in MC No.90/2015 and MC No.109/2015

on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag.

Hence, heard arguments commonly in both cases.

4. Parties would be referred to as husband and wife

respectively for sake of convenience and clarity.

5. Wife has filed MC No.90/2015 under Sec.9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), praying for

restitution of conjugal rights.

6. Husband has filed MC No.109/2015, praying for a

decree of divorce under Sec.13(1)(i) & (ia) of the Act.

7. The case of wife in both petitions in nutshell is

that her marriage with husband took place on 23.04.2008

as per Hindu customs at Shubodaya Kalyana Mantap,

Hassan in presence of elders. After the marriage, wife

started residing with her husband at his place and due to

wedlock; she has given birth to twin daughters on

07.03.2010 in her parental house and named them as

Nemith and Nimish. Afterwards her husband never visited

her house and she has completed her period of postpartum

care (banantana) and came back to the house of her

husband during August 2010. Only because wife has given

birth to twin daughters, she was disrespected in the house

of her husband by her husband and his mother-in-law and

they were always telling that he would get divorce. Only

with an intention to get the decree of divorce, i.e., to prove

that she is not having good mental health by force, husband

has taken her to Bengaluru; husband was always telling

that she was not looking after the children well and

assaulting them and abusing them. He was always

suspecting the fidelity of the wife and checking her mobile

phone and assaulting her, abusing her for small and petty

reasons. He was not eating meals prepared by her. Hence,

she informed these facts to her elders and they have

advised the husband several times. But, he did not heed for

their advice. Ultimately, husband quarreled with wife and

sent her and their two daughters-Nemith and Nimish during

March-2015 to her parental house and immediately,

afterwards he sent divorce notice on 25.04.2015 through

his advocate to the wife. On 01.05.2015, elders called them

and advised them and in that meeting, the husband agreed

to take his wife and children back to his house and hence

the wife has not given any reply to his notice and waited for

him. However, he has not come back; on the other hand,

filed M.C.No.72/2015 before the Family Court, Hassan.

However, wife intends and is willing to live with her

husband and hence she has filed this petition for restitution

of conjugal rights.

8. Husband had filed M.C.No.72/2015 before

Principal Judge, Family Court, Hassan under Sec.13(1)(i), (ii

)& (v) of the Act, praying for dissolution of his marriage

with his wife. After filing this petition, it was transferred to

Family Court, Gadag, as per Order passed in CP

No.1074/2015 and was then re-numbered as MC

No.109/2015. Thus, the petition of husband was earlier to

the petition of wife.

9. In this petition, and also in the objections to

petition under Sec. 9 of the Act, the husband has taken

contention that after the marriage and the birth of two

daughters Nemith and Nimish, the wife was not cordially

living with him and was always suspecting him, quarreling

with him for petty reasons and was verifying his mobile

calls, messages, assaulting and abusing the children without

any reason, not looking after them properly, not preparing

the food properly and was wasting her time. He further

contended that the wife had lost her mental balance. In this

regard, he got her treated by Dr. Jagdeesh, Abhaya

Hospital, Wilson Gordon, Bengaluru on 26.05.2012 and on

07.11.2014 she was again taken for counseling. But, the

wife did not take the medicines given by the doctor properly

and was very negligent by saying that she is not having any

mental health issues and was always threatening the

husband that she would commit suicide. She was not

interested to lead her marital life with her husband and she

forcibly accepted for the marriage as she was forced by her

parents and she would live with her lover in her village and

is also having illicit relationship with her lover. Hence, the

husband prayed for allowing the petition for divorce and

dismissal of petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

10. On behalf of wife, wife was examined as P.W.1,

got marked her marriage invitation card as Ex.P.1 and

closed her side before trial Court. On behalf of respondent-

husband, husband was examined as R.W.1 and closed his

side before trial Court.

11. After recording evidence of both sides and

hearing arguments of both sides, learned trial Judge came

to the conclusion that the wife has proved that respondent-

husband has withdrawn his society with her without any

reasonable cause and thus, she is entitled for restitution of

conjugal rights and husband-respondent has not established

the grounds urged in the petition for divorce and thereby

dismissed his petition.

12. Learned counsel for appellant Sri Jagadishgouda

Patil, in both appeals submits that the husband and wife are

not residing together since long time and wife has filed the

petition for restitution of conjugal rights and it was not her

intention. She has not looked after the children well and has

been cauterizing them and also living with her paramour.

Wife has treated husband and his mother with cruelty and

wife is trying to hide the truth and put blame on him and

this amounts to inflicting mental cruelty upon the appellant.

However, learned trial Judge has not considered these

aspects properly and decreed the petition filed by her for

restitution of conjugal rights and dismissed his petition for

divorce. Hence, prayed for allowing both the appeals.

13. Learned counsel for respondent Sri M.M.Patil, in

both appeals submits that no material has been produced to

show that wife treated the husband and children with

cruelty, except the self serving testimony of the appellant.

No iota of evidence is produced to prove the same. He

himself has driven the wife and children to her parental

house. Considering these aspects, learned trial Judge rightly

decreed the petition filed by wife for restitution of conjugal

rights and dismissed the petition filed by husband for

divorce. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of both the appeals.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and upon perusal of the appeal papers along with original

records of the trial Court, the following points arise for our

consideration in this appeal:

i) Whether the appellant in both appeals

prove that the learned trial Judge erred in

appreciating the factual aspects properly

- 10 -

               and   decreed        the     petition       filed    by

               respondent     for      restitution    of    conjugal

rights and dismissed the petition filed by

the appellant for divorce?

          ii) Whether       interference       with        the     said

               judgment is required?

          iii) What order?

15. Our answer to point Nos.1 and 2 are in 'negative'

for the following reasons:-

Point Nos.1 and 2:- These points are considered

together as they require common discussion.

16. Though the petition is filed under Sec.13(1)(i),

(ii) & (v) of the Act, the averments in the petition

apparently reveal that it is filed only under Sec.13(1)(i) &

(ia) of the Act.

17. A husband or wife may obtain decree of divorce

under Sec.13(1)(i) of the Act, if he/she establishes that the

other spouse had voluntary sexual intercourse with any

person other than his/her spouse.

- 11 -