IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100358 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

ABDUL HAMEED S/O. ABDUL JABBAR KAHAN SAVANUR AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: H.NO.39, SUVIDHA COLONY, (C.T.S. NO.458/B/39, WARD EXTENSION), KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH DMKA iAg LLit MLaIl AKy TA H sRigJnUeNd RbUyDRAYYA AND:

LKD+ oAa0 c tR 5e a 3 N: t 0 i 2Ao 0 nT2 :A 5 HK.0 IAG 4 H .1 5 C O 11 U :5 R 5 T : 3 O 0 F SMT. ASMA W/O. ABDUL HAMEED SAVANUR AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SENIOR BANK MANAGER, R/O. SYNDICATE BANK, NGV, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.V.VASANTHALAKSHMI AND SRI. B.R.DHANANJAIAH, ADVOCATES)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF C.P.C., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2019 PASSED IN O.S. NO.318/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HUBBALLI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) In the captioned appeal, the appellant has questioned the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court in O.S.No.318/2014. In the said suit, the appellant herein who is the plaintiff sought a declaration to declare the sale transaction dated 16.04.1994 relating to suit plot relating to respondent/defendant who is the wife as a benami transaction and to declare that the respondent/defendant is the benamidar of the suit property holding that plaintiff is the real owner and for consequential relief of injunction. The said suit was contested by the defendant/wife and the Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/husband on merits.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.1/2025 seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the suit that was originally filed before the regular Civil Court and to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action before the jurisdictional Family Court. The primary contention raised by the appellant/plaintiff is that the dispute between the husband and wife pertains to a property that was purchased in the name of the wife, and therefore, the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The appellant/plaintiff has urged that the appropriate forum to decide such disputes is the Family Court, as per the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff has specifically drawn the attention of this Court to Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. This provision stipulates that the Family Court has jurisdiction over disputes between spouses relating to property of either or both parties. Citing this statutory provision, the learned counsel contended that the suit filed before the regular Civil Court was not maintainable from the outset. It was further argued that the husband, who is the appellant/plaintiff in this case, had inadvertently instituted the suit before the wrong forum and that the defect in jurisdiction should not bar him from pursuing his legal rights before the proper forum, i.e., the Family Court.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant has vehemently opposed the application. She has contended that the respondent/wife has been subjected to continuous harassment at the hands of the appellant/husband, who is a practicing Advocate. She has highlighted that the suit has been lingering since 2014, compelling the wife to undergo severe mental, emotional, and financial distress due to the prolonged litigation. The learned counsel further emphasized that the respondent/wife, lacking adequate financial resources, has been f