MFA No.66E-212004
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
cxreczurr BENCH AT mwzwan
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH
PRESENT _ '
THE HON'/BLE MR..JUSl'ICE AJIT .:..r.:»..: 3
THE HONBLE MI2.qu$fr1ci=:'----J A'2vAn #e...1a:.~if1V'1vi' V' '.
MISCELLANEOUS FiRST AP;§}3;AL 1§o;5<53<.z,3'2é€;{--£%(Vi§a'c)
EETWEEN:
Smt.Shashika1a, 7'; '
W/0 Sfltish Po1"e."'~-_ ' _
D/0 Kumatekar, "
Aged 28 yflars, V AA »-- V
High_ Scho<51VTtV3an::};)'.er, '
Pani:1ichI'oshi'I--I_igh School,
V' 'I ' ..... ..
V Taimka'
_ VDistz_1'ct;_Bc*_1?g:=§um. ...Appc1lam
"{.B ysxi.G.;'§3:--;1gV:a:V "shag Shastzy, Aziv.)
ANi3;..
~ Sti;«Safish, S/0 Vithob Pore,
' Majtér, Attender in Syndicate Bank,
"Branch Nalatwad, R/o Tczdal,
.. __'§'a1uka Jamkhandi,
Disnict Bagaikot,
New residing at Naiatwad,
Taluka Muddebihal,
District. Bijapur. . . . Respondent
MFA No.er:332/2004
: 2 :
(By Sriljmesh V.Man1adap11r, Adv)
This appeal is filed under Section 28 (1) oi:”}~–u{i;a::xi:i11
Marriage Act against the order cIt.4.6.2004_ j ” ;ii1fi
M.C..No.11/02 on the file of the Civil Judge -e{Sr.I3n_.je
Muddebihal, allowing the petition filed by.~i1.*.C’:”!E9pi3I1{1E11f~«., ”
herein 11/3 9 of the Hindu Ma,x1iage”‘Aet« for of deexee
for restitution of conjugal rights eto., j ‘ ‘ i
This appea} coming Q33.’ for iiaeoring, fciay’,i
J.Gunjal. J., delivered the foflosying: ” V
Jooomejglj
1. The appellant is is the husband.
A petition was u]§3″‘§’~ Act,19S5,
for V V
2. facts’ ‘the disposal of this appeal can
be as hfollowisiiii
” Ilmrifzg the of this order, the parties would be
iieir ranking in the trial court.
ii Petiiiofier is the husband. Respondent is the wife.
Their” ma1’ri,age is solemnised on 26.05.1991 at
“:i:i’_AV1:32;’2004
:3:
zespondent according to the husband started .
with him and his family membere bfmm’ V
onwards far no valid reasons. The petitioner is l’}i?0lI”lV(:i3fl_g”=fl§3
an attendar in Syneiicate Bankand tiis §:”1ua3ifieeit§on_.is .
and that of his wife is M.A., and as a
teacher in a private vrléhgifespflitdentvvit appears
purchased a house in jneme and got this
fact entered the petitioner.
Thus, the avéay fiom the husband.
Despite’ tlite responeient refused to
resumelrer Hence, this petition.
“K11. to the notice, respondent entered
a counsel and filed statement of
.ge§1¢§tiefis§’_ s’:-15′ admitted her relationship with the petitioner
tftiéit-slre is the legally Wedéeci wife and that the
._petitio’ner is the father of two children. She however denied
ll tile allegations in the petition and contends that on the
V. _ ..-.::o;m:rary petifioner started harassing her and demanding
éowry and mo1:3.t1:11y salary from the respondent although the
respondent was @’vi3:1g her salary to the petitioner. On these
:5
MFA N0.6632,/2004
: 5 :
did not lead any evidence to buttmss her statement she
is not residing at matrimonial home. It is also to
that in the statement of objections she did no;
contention that the courts at §;aveu VV
jurisdiction but allowed the
period of two years. indeed, ‘5i’v’m;s :5 noficefii épa: af ‘
litigexlt subjects hezeeff-.._»_:he.. of 8.
authority er a court, cannot later
mm around i.:be courts did not
have hesfieen by this Couri: in the case
of conpomarrom
i?’S.V_”R.1{.-.PA¢3%_#E.!?!GEN mm LTB. (11.12 2005 mm
” are of the View that it is not open. for the
Ies;;Sonde1’1i:;new to contend that the Courts 33: Muddehihal
did nisehave jurisdiction.
In so far as the merits are concerned, afier perusing
” ” {he judgment we are satisfied that the evidence let in by the
petit:ioner–husband Woulé cleafiy disclose that the fl
/
j’
MFA N’o.6632f’2004
mspondeni:-wife had defiheraieiy Withdrawn
at’ her hnwband.
6. Having perused the }11»d,gme1:z 1iV..afi£i.
given our anxious consideratic’n,V”we are ‘efVthe:.”vieisr fliat this V
is not a case Where 01Ri’~.j;nte:rféi*£:’z£fii§; .(2)8llE:”tZ’1′ Vi0r.*’ No maxit.
AS99631 dismissed. ' V
~7.I11.dga
k %« Sd/'3
Judge