Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
JAYANT BANERJI, UMESH M.ADIGA
Jagdeep L. Reddy S/o G.R. Lakshmipathi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Neelimakallur W/o Jagdeep L. Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JAYANT BANERJI, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the husband under Section19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, Act, 1984 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2023, by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru in M.C.No.4402/2017, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Act, 1955 for divorce.
2. The appellant and respondent are husband and wife, who got married on 23.05.2013 and thereafter they started living together at their matrimonial home in Bengaluru along with the parents of the petitioner. The appellant is a qualified Engineer with Masters’ degree and is the only son of his parents. He had informed the respondent that he had joined employment in United States of America, USA only to gain some experience and his firm intention was to live with his parents and that he would return to India and stay with his parents. On the respondent agreeing to these terms, they got married. The parties left for USA in June 2013. They have a son born on 25.03.2015, who is stated to be under the custody of respondent at present. Several allegations have been made by the appellant against the
The jurisdiction over matrimonial disputes involving Hindus married in India remains under Indian law, regardless of their foreign citizenship, thus invalidating foreign divorce decrees not adhering ....
A marriage established under the Hindu Marriage Act remains valid and binding regardless of subsequent foreign citizenship, thus Indian courts have jurisdiction over related matrimonial disputes.
Wedding reception cannot be called as a part of marriage ritual.
Point of Law : Orders relating to custody of wards even when based on consent are liable to be varied by Court, if welfare of wards demands variation."
Legal representation in Family Court is not an entitlement; it requires compliance with court orders, particularly regarding child custody matters.
Point of law: Requirement under Section 13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act is the “motion of both parties”.
The Family Court's discretion to allow legal representation is conditional upon compliance with prior court orders regarding child custody.
Civil Judges cannot issue matrimonial decrees without jurisdiction; disputes must be addressed in Family Courts or District Courts when Family Courts are absent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
