* _ ADUGQDIV, BANGA'L<3'i?E --- 560 030.
IN THE rim;-: COUR"I' OF KARNATAKA, Bmeagégm
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,«'A'
PRESENT AT
THE HOWBLE MR. JUsTIc;§f
THE HON'BLE MR. JusT:c:fi:9,.:§. SAé*§%1=§NA:§,A"§}ANA
M.F.A'.
BETWEEN 'b %'
Sm. LEELA».B"f"1-I;;.__ , '
W] 0.1 'SR1. .12': _sUR1s:SH ' RAI
I3/0.':sRI1."fi~1,11\2i:~sIAIA§:;"'%V._ .. '
AGED mew'? 3V4'Y:_E.AR-S'
No.35, RAGHAVENDRA 'RILAYA
431-I C_ROSS',~VSOC1E;3TY'v_CC5LONY
NEW' GANAPATHI TEMPLE
. .. APPELLANT
A _(B*;{Si~u1?i*.--« EENU KA, ADVOCATE)
ANB
TH SURESH RA]
S'/"Q. SR1. HANUMANTHARAYA
' AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
"R/AT SANJU COCONUT FARM
.. _€}oLLAHAL1,1 ms'?
PUTTAIAH NAPALYA
SIDDARTHANAGAR
TUMKUR -- 572 101.
RESPONDENT
(BY M] 3. 139133 A] s, ADVOCATE)
AND DEGREE DATED 31.o7.2eoe…MAbe’ {IN “Met
82/2004 on THE FILE 101$». *’me* Am:>L..em’t.u
JUf)GE(SR.DVN) AT TUMKLIR Arte AIe¢EO’§£I1NGTH33_t’
PETITION FILED I178. 13 or ‘me HIH.DU.V’MAR’RIAGE ACT
FOR DISSOLUTION op’ MARRIAGE. _
This appeal cotitliing “;’e.ea:t’1’ng’H day,
SREEDHAR RAO J., ‘delivereti. the” ‘fQl1()’WiI1g:
The filed a petition seeidng
divo1*e;e.” served with the notice.
The apjieliant ,—objections statement. The
case was fer Aevtdence. The respondent fxlefan
:iI1″li{31I oéfwekaé ;mination-in«cI*1ief. The appellan
wee. net::’present;~ Hence, an the basis of evidence, after
Court has granted the decree of
divorce.
The wife is in appeal. In the appeal geunds, it
isetated that her husband mislead and misrepresented
” ~’ her that he would withdraw the divorce petition and
cf.
A
5.
therefore, she mg: not contest the petition;T”»r.The
reasons stated by the appellant carmot _ f
aside lightly. After all the decree ..:
Therefore, it is just and properTj_n a;..sefieuS..matfin3or;ia1
diepute. The appenant -.___ehoti1d’° be f d
opportunity to contest: théggaee. ‘ the
judment of the ‘Veer;-..siid’e and the matter
is remanded ate fifnesh disposal
accordirigt _ :31: TIie””*eippea} is disposed ofi’
acc0rd_ixigly§ V’ “V
sal-
Judge
Sd/-3
mega