Karnataka High Court
Smt. Satyavva W/O. Hullappa Meti vs Sri. Hullappa S/O. Dundappa Meti on 22 September, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12823-DB
MFA No. 105956 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
M.F.A. NO.105956 OF 2024 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SATYAVVA W/O. HULLAPPA METI,
D/O. NINGAPPA JANAMATTI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KUMBAR GALLI, BILAGI,
TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. HULLAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA METI,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC DRIVER,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI R/O. TALAGIHAL, TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.19(1)
OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
TRAIL COURT RECORDS, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2023 PASSED BY
PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BAGALKOT IN
M.C.NO.09/2023 AND REMAND THE MATTER FOR TRIAL IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12823-DB
MFA No. 105956 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree
dated 26.10.2023 passed in M.C.No.9/2023 by the Prl. Judge,
Family Court, Bagalkote (for short, 'Family Court').
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the
marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on
17.05.2009 at Hulleshwar temple of Talagihal village as per the
customs and rituals of their community. It is averred that the
appellant resided with the respondent only for five days and
thereafter, she went to her parental house and she did not
returned to the matrimonial house.
3. It is further averred that the respondent in the
October 2019 went to the appellant's parents house and
requested her to join the matrimonial house, however, she
abused him and on 15.02.2022, the respondent issued legal
notice to the appellant asking her to join him, but she failed to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12823-DB
HC-KAR
join him. Hence, he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal
rights which was allowed, despite the same, the appellant did not
join the matrimonial house. Hence, he filed a petition for
dissolution of marriage which came to be allowed.
4. Sri. Santhosh B. Mane, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant submits that there is no dispute with regard to the
relationship between the parties. It is submitted that the
impugned judgment and decree is ex-parte without service of
notice. It is further submitted that even the legal notice
produced at Ex.P2 and Ex.P2(a) clearly indicate that the said
notice was served to a wrong address. It is also submitted that
notice of the Family Court proceedings were never served on the
appellant and the appellant being an illiterate women, without
means is required to defend the proceedings by adducing
evidence. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by remanding
matter back to the Family Court to reconsider the case on merits
after providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant. Hence, he
seeks to allow the appeal.
5. Though the notice of the appeal is served on the
respondent, he remained absent.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12823-DB
HC-KAR
6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the appellant and meticulously perused the material available on
record. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced. The point that arises for consideration is
whether the impugned judgment and decree call for any
interference?
7. The material on record indicate that the respondent
filed M.C.No.9/2023 under Section 13(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground that the
appellant did not join the matrimonial home despite, decree for
restitution of conjugal rights dated 23.06.2022 in
M.C.No.36/2022. The records further indicate that the marriage
between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on
17.05.2009 at Hulleshwar temple of Talagihal village as per the
customs and rituals of their community. It is contended that the
appellant resided with the respondent only for five days and
thereafter went to her parental house and she did not return to
the matrimonial house. Hence, he filed a petition for restitution
of conjugal rights which was allowed, despite the same, the
appellant could not join matrimonial house.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12823-DB
HC-KAR
8. The records indicate that the notice issued to the
appellant produced at Ex.P2 is not sent to her address as is
evident from Ex.P2(a). The postal cover which is marked as
Ex.P2(b) indicates that the appellant has not claimed the notice
sent by the respondent. There is no material on record to
indicate that the postman has given intimation to the appellant
and thereafter he has put shara as 'not claimed'. The said postal
endorsement cannot be considered as a service of notice by the
respondent. The judgment does not indicate that the notice
issued to the respondent is served on her and despite that she
remained absent. It is a specific assertion of the appellant that
the notice of the proceedings is not served on the appellant and
the said assertion is not contraverted by the respondent.
Furthermore, it is required to be taken note that the appellant is
residing in her parental house for many years as per the
respondent-husband and the right to defend the proceedings for
dissolution of marriage is a substantive right to the appellant.
The appellant is required to be provided one opportunity to
defend the proceedings by allowing the appeal. It is made clear
that the appellant shall appear in M.C.No.9/2023 and file her
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12823-DB
HC-KAR
objections and contest the proceedings in accordance with law.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and decree dated
26.10.2023 passed in M.C.No.9/2023 by the Prl.
Judge, Family Court, Bagalkote is set aside and
the matter is remitted back to the Family Court
to reconsider M.C.No.9/2023 by providing
opportunity to the parties to the proceedings and
dispose off the petition in accordance with law.
iii. No orders as to costs.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
RKM/CT-AN
