IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL:jRE";'--,I:
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER,_--_;ZO1vOfi' A
PRESENT _A~_
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJ1T5_'_a;~
ANL{_
THE I-IONBLE MRS._JUSTI(§E"B,V..NAGARAISHNA
M.F.A. N(;4..':§332g_sI:I,I.0*'{1¢$+::j_;I
BETWEEN:
MSRAMYA
W/O.Mr.S.P.OMKAR_, ' '
AGED
R/O.NO.:l57, 4'm?cRQss,-.'V"'~A.V _ -
NAVILU ROAD, A * I
KUVEMPU'NVA'GAR,V, '
MYSOREM 579 023.' . .
PRESENTLY WORKING WITH:
4_ .. VVIRGIN?-QQATI;AI\ITIC 'AIRVVAYS,
D..L-F";vBUI1i;DI§'€G,
I "~.coNNAu(3I-IT--PLAcE,
NEW Db$I._IfiI_4~v .1' To "Q01.
RESI1).E:N'h"AL.AQDRESS:
NO.22_0, [I3'--_PO'€;I{I£'I'),
SARITA vI»T41AR;'
_ NEZW DELHI M. 110 076. APPELLANT
_ I fI3Y SMT. HEMALATHA MAHISHI, ADV.)
A A" 'Mr.S.P.OMKAR.
S/O.Mr.S.L.PRABHAKAR,
AGED 37' YRS.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEER.
R/O.NO.78, SOUTH SPARTA
APARTMENTS, FLAT.NO.406.
47" FLOOR, 15"' MAIN ROAD,
177" CROSS, J.P.NAGAR.
BANGALORE ~-- 560 078. ...RESPONDEN.'F__
[BY SR1 S.G.KRISHNA1VIURTHY. ADV.)
**$** _ _T _
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S. 19(1) oz?"-1*I~1I--E~1v.EAiMII,Yu
COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE
DATED 1'7/8/2010 PASSED IN Mc.i"\*o.1gI"I /2009 "ON
FILE OF THE JUDGE, rA'IvIILY "eo'U.RT,'.:v'AI+.2Ifx*SQ1iE,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILI§fD.v":U,/VS.1S{'1}..i{i¥:a] VII:-bi or
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,..'fi"QR "
THIS APPEAL coI\/III\I'c;_'oN.,I3*oR::H'EAIzINo THIS DAY,
AJIT J.GUNJAL J.,= DELIV-EaEp"TH»E_ EoLI;'owING:--
am I
The..d.iIs_p"u.te is:;Iirite-rse__:t)etweeVr1 the husband and Wife.
Since marriagewas riotiworizabie and it was irretrievabiy
broken. the"'~Wi£'ewas "'i;ei'orie'_.»S.the Family Court. Mysore. in a
petitiori' Llndel' Seetioh 113(1) {i-a) {i--b) of Hindu Marriage Act.
see}€.i_.ng dtis¢So41LIt_i0n of marriage on the ground of cruelty as
w'ei_1"as. deSe~rtio.Iui.V
we notice that the marriage between the
it'"'~._Vappe1la1Tt~...as well as the respondent, was performed on
_hZ9v/4.,/,i;'OO2 and it was registered on 4/ 5/ 2002. Suffice it to
say? that since marriage was not eonsumH1at.ed, the present
«sipetition is filed on the ground of Cruelty as well as desertion. g g
r' -
.
K.
1
{M
t
The respondent — husband entered appearance and resistged
the petition. Learned Family Judge, having
evidence let — in by both the wife and the V’
declined to accept the petition as against-\vhic9hl!fija.’W§fé
come up before this Court. 3 3 it
3. In this appeal, bothllt1{;:t;:§’i~.V1/iusbvand’ have
filed a joint Petition ufiger “‘1-filblht o’f*-theili Hindu
Marriage Act r/w Sectional’ 3′ 23 Rule 3
r/W Section 151v marriage is
no longer workable to dissolve the
nlarriagejvvhichtivvasbperforrnled 4/2002. The parties
are beffige have questioned both the
husband wife; that the marriage is no
V longergvvorkable shouid be dissolved.
V’A.L44′,’tteed, we notice that there is no
coe_rci_on/intiinidation/ undue influence. tie have also taken
V _note”of duration of the marriage sought to be dissolved:
absence oisany possibility of reconciliation; lack of frivolity:
3′ .lac_k’-sf misrepresentation or concealment; the age of the
‘ivspciuses and the deleterious effect of the continuance of a
” sterile marriage would be detrimental to the interest of both
husband and wife. We aiso notice that the possibility of both M
husband and wife staying together is virtually non existeriti
Hence. We place the joint memo on record. Conseqtx-,er’it]:j’,A:;”:u
the judgment and decree passed by them 4′
Mysore in M.C.141/2009 is set aside.
29/4/2002 txiueen the appsngnt = wu§’d and .5
respondent» husband stands disso1ved___’_in’~te1’r§;s
Memo.
5. Accordingilyé.’:.£ti1e disposed of.
Registry to draw a V
tii sa/u
JUDGE
Sd/-
EUDGE
{"'r'nus .. " ~