[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rajeshwari W/O Pavan Alias Naveen ... vs Pavan Alias Naveen S/O Basappa Patil on 10 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2014-DB
MFA No. 101089 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101089/2024 (MC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. PAVAN @ NAVEEN PATIL,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB,
R/O: LOLASUR, TQ: GOKAK,
NOW AT WARD NO.4,
C/O. MALLAPPA KOLKAR MAIN BAZAR,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADV. FOR
SRI. D.V. PATTAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PAVAN @ NAVEEN S/O. BASAPPA PATIL,
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL AGED: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
R/O: LOLASUR - 591 306,
Dharwad Bench, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
Dharwad
... RESPONDENT
(NOTICE ISSUED TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED,
BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC HUNAGUND IN MATRIMONIAL CASE NO.05/2022 DATED
29.09.2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2014-DB
MFA No. 101089 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)
1. Aggrieved by the order passed in M.C. No.5 of 2022,
the petitioner therein has preferred the present appeal.
2. The appellant was the wife and the respondent was
her husband. On the grounds of impotency and cruelty, the
appellant preferred M.C. No.5 of 2022. The respondent remained
ex-parte before the Family Court.
3. The appellant in her pleadings in M.C. No.5 of 2022
has sought the following prayers:
"Wherefore, the Hon'ble court, under the
circumstances, be pleased to pass decree of divorce of
marriage solemnized between petitioner and respondent
on 16.02.2020 in Samudaya Bhavan, near Mayura school
Gokak in Belagavi district.
The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to
permanent alimony of Rs. 30,00,000/- from respondent to
petitioner for her livelihood.
Such other reliefs in the circumstances may granted
in the interest of justice."
4. However, it is noticed that in the pleadings there is
no mention as to the financial status of her husband or the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2014-DB
HC-KAR
appellant herself, which is necessary for the Court to assess the
quantum of alimony payable to her.
5. In support of her claim, the appellant examined
herself as PW-1 and marked only the marriage invitation card,
legal notice and postal receipt as Exs.P-1, P-2 and P-3
respectively.
6. In the affidavit evidence filed by the appellant, she
has spoken only about the impotency of her husband and the
cruelty to which she was subjected, which has gone
unchallenged. However, she has not stated anything about the
financial capability of her husband or herself, and she has not
let-in any evidence to grant alimony.
7. Under the circumstances, the Family Court in its
judgment, has framed the following points for its considerations
and has answered them as follows:
"1. Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds to grant divorce under
Sec.12(1)(a) and Sec.13(1)(ia) of Hindu
Marriage Act?
2. What order?
6. The findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: Partly In the affirmative and
partly in the negative
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2014-DB
HC-KAR
Point No.2: As per final order"
8. The Family Court has passed the following order:
"The petition filed by the petitioner under Section
13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act is hereby allowed
and in respect of Sec.12(1)(a) is hereby dismissed.
The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent
solemnized on 16/02/2020 at Samudaya Bhavana, Near
Mayura School, Gokak is hereby dissolved by grant of
divorce on account of cruelty.
Draw the decree accordingly."
9. The present appeal is filed by the appellant on the
ground that alimony has not been granted to her. She has no
grievance regarding the decree of divorce being granted by the
Family Court.
10. As can be seen from the petition as well as the
evidence adduced by the appellant before the Family Court, no
grounds are made out for granting any alimony. In the course of
the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits
that she had failed to make out any grounds for grant of any
alimony before the Family Court and prays that this Court, in
exercise of its discretionary powers, may grant some alimony.
11. The respondent has remained absent before this
Court also.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2014-DB
HC-KAR
12. It is further noticed that even in the memorandum of
appeal filed by the appellant, there are pleadings only in respect
of the impotence of her husband. Even with regard to cruelty,
there is no specific averment as to an instance of cruelty; only a
general and omnibus allegation has been made. There is no
whisper regarding the financial status of either her husband or
herself. The appellant has failed to make out any ground, on
which alimony can be granted to her.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
error in the order passed by the Family Court and accordingly,
the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
VNP: Para 1 to 11
SSP: Para 12 to end
CT: ASC
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17
