High Court Karnataka High Court

Basavaraj vs Sujatha on 8 March, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj vs Sujatha on 8 March, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
DHARWAD.  

DATED THIS THE 8"" DAY OF MARCH 2930 A f of  

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE 1\m.JUsTTCT«; N';_K~.f'A'Fii; Co  7  A
AND % A  A  
TIE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE &B;~-éI{:EENIVAéS'E"G()"\E7VDA

M.F.A. N5. A'1oA410,*2b05  
C/w M.F.A5_No... :41 1{;~9o5T{§c}

In M.F.A. No. 1410/:>;oo';4;'A . . T 

Between: ____ H

Sri Basavarajis/o --.D"argéppaA 4Kufida'rgi,' '

Aged 40 years;r/o'-Dharwad; »  

At present : Ranebezixiur A ._ 7  

 ~ 'A   " C' -- Appellant
(bysri Hanigmerxthappa Ch.ik.kana}, Mailappa K and
T:'himinaTaya.  Afiivocates)

 and 

A Sujafha wzio. Béeavaraj,
. .. _jAged~ about 34.')/ears,
_ Nefimnagar, behind Patel Saw Mill,

A? .o A 'Ta1--uk-5 Sits

  Kittoor & Associates)

- Respondent

AA»-



This appeal is filed u/S 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act-against
the judgment and Decree dated 15.12.2004 passed in
38/2000 on the file of the Add}. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.),WRanieb'emur,

rejecting the petition filed by the appellant herein u/S ply»

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce."  V _

In M.F.A. No. 1411/2005
Between:

Sri Basavaraj s/0 Durgappa Kundargi,  _

Aged 40 years, r/0 Dharwad,  g   5'
At present : Ranebennur 5' a _

      - Appellant
(by Sri Hanumanthappa_Chikkane.,l, Mailappa K and A

Thiinmaraya. C, Adyocates) 

and

Smt. Suj athag 'W/o' Biasavarnaj  5' 5'

Aged about 3-4 years;   i    ' '
R/at Nehrunagar, behind Patel S~a_W«l\.-Iill,
Talul<---Sirsi.  * V    

V. _     * - Respondent
(hy.P.V. Kittoor & Ass"ocia_t_es}

 *'§"his..appea_l:'ivs:ifiled u/S 47(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act
against the judgnaentfand decree dated 15.12.2004 passed in G & W

 No. 10/01 on the'fi'le.5of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Ranebennur,

 "di'smissing~the application filed by the appellant herein u/S 25 of the G

_ Act I'/W~~ See. 6 of Hindu Minorities and Guardianship Act, 1956
'lseek--ingA.c:.istody of the minor child.

 A Theseiappeals coming on for final hearing this day, N.K.Patil 1.,

5 'del.i\{fere_d the following:



JUDGMENT

1. These two appeals ariseiout of the judgment

15.12.2004 passed in G & W No. 10/01 onthe file:o’t”’thie’:vAid-dl’_;.Cixiil ” »

Judge (Sr. Dn.), Ranebennur.

2. This case came up for hearingion:._iv2..1vV2.200i%i,ii:hibneifappear for
the parties and case was adjourned’. matter was listed
01.03.2010 none appearfor inore opportunity
to the parties the the case is called
out neither their respective counsel
are present. not diligent to prosecute the
case. However,”in_Vthe justice we have gone through the
grounds ‘apipel_l.ant in the instant appeal and impugned

judgmentva§V*ar’d::passed by the Court below. On perusal of the

Ills»-.._sarne v\}’i1at”iemerge.s dis that the appellant has filed a petition u/S

){ia)(ib) Hindu Marriage Act contending that the appellant and

iresponcicnt are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on

at Marikamba Sirsi Temple as per the customs of Hindu

/,,/«

religion. Out of their wedlock a son was born on 01.1 1.1992. He was

named as Shivashankar. The appellant is a native of Dharwaid

parents are residing at Dharwad. He was appointed

in Sericulture Department. For the last eve years’..on.;acc”o1.1_nt’oi’ his

service in Sericulture Department he want’etoi”e_stablish; ‘ho’L1se,at’=,

Ranibennur. But the respondent in
Sirsi. When the appellant went”to_ her the month
of March 1992 he made all_ back to lead
matrimonial life. with him and
insisted him her on the ground
that her parents citizens and there is no one to
look after them; consideration the appellant felt
ne.eessityV_.teg.i an app}-icati_on u/S 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for

restitution of c,o’njugal’ rights and the same was registered in lVI.C. No.

onfltiiie Judge (Senior Division), Dharwad. After

of notice the respondent as a counter blast appeared through

i._i_tl1e_ Cot1nse.l”‘g_«and filed objections. There was conciliation took place

. ‘ibetweeni the parties, they have filed ajoint memo and the petition was

Aw

withdrawn. Thereafter the appellant was transferred to Chennagiri.
There they stayed few days leading their life happilyr..l:’f”–«_:B,tit
unfortunately in the month of June l997 the parents of

took the respondent to her matrimonial hieuse’.-« .”l’he alplpellarit’-niadep

efforts to lead matrimonial life peacefltlly tak__ingV_ care the

child but due to intervention of the parents. of could if
not workout. Therefore heluwas petition
redressing his grievances. leadhifigvpipeaceful life with’?
the appellant, lilielalpetiition u/S 125 of Cr.

P.C. seeking respondent is not ready and
willing to lead appellant. Therefore he was
constrained to llfi’-lei’ petitionlllonl around of cruelty and non cos
operationv_bjvl revspon’dent__t_oé lead peaceful marital life.

3. .said_Vrnatt.Ver’ has come up for consideration before the Trial

‘K”l’hle ‘friia’l Court after hearing both the sides and on

_l_ijeonsi.deration of oral and documentary evidence available on file

4:-rejectedl.the”p_petition holding that there is no ground made out by the

#.'”,_,,.r

petitioner, petitioner has failed to establish that respondent 13-as_>failed

to reside at Ranebennur whereas respondent has proved is

living with the appellant at Ranebennur. Being

impugned order passed by the Tfializiiéourtiv -i’_appellan_t

respondent respectively felt necessity to fileiitheiinstant’appeals. i

4. We have gone through the groundsi._:”rged._ in theiappeal filed by
appellant. After perusal of order passed

by the learned Additional’y’_’Civi_l Judge (‘Senior.Di.Krision), Ranebennur,

we do not find any liessfany material irregularity as
such committed.i ” ‘ _-tal(en into consideration and
specifically at”one_st’ag_e’ “appellant and respondent have

compromised. the matter.’ But unfortunately due to the transfer of

appeliliant Cli’icl1llag_iVrl the respondent ‘stayed with him few months.

Again”she’.ii.as”‘gone parental house. Taking all these facts into

coinsideration assigning cogent and valid reasons has rejected the

4. petition.’ ‘=T_he reasons given for rejecting the petition is just and

iii’-i”_reasonab§lei. it We do not find any error or law in the impugned order

%,…..~

nor we do not find any grounds made by the appellant to entertain the

appeais.

5. F or the foregoing reasons the instant»Vappeaa!’s”‘a:’e.:d§,si’nissed.e_as

devoid of merits. Ordered accordingiy.

bvv G