IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6953 OF 2015 (MC)

BETWEEN:

SRI GANESH S KUNDAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O SADHU ANCHAN, R/AT POSANOTTU HOUSE, NAKRE, KUKKUNDOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK-576117.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by VANAMALA SMT SRILATHA N AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, Location:

HIGH W/O GANESH S KUNDAR, COURT OF KARNATAKA R/AT KELAGINA DHADDU MANE, SOODA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK-574104.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA., ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 28 (1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.06.2015 PASSED IN M.C.NO.2/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL CJM, KARKALA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S. 13(1)(ia) AND (ib) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The appellant is unsuccessful in his petition under Section 13[1][ia] and 13[1][ib] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short, ‘the HM Act'] in MC No.2/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional CJM, Karkala [for short, ‘the trial Court']. The trial Court by the impugned order and decree dated 20.06.2015 has dismissed the appellant's petition opining that it is not convinced, on appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, to hold that the respondent is guilty of either cruelty or desertion.

2. The trial court's observation is that, because the appellant and his family members are acquitted in a criminal case, is no reason to hold that the respondent had filed a false case or that she had treated the appellant cruelly to justify a decree of divorce on such ground. The trial Court has also observed that the appellant is not entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion because the appellant has not stated when he last resided with the respondent. Apart from these observations, the trial Court has also opined that the appellant has not stated specific instances of cruelty by the respondent. The merits of the appellant's grievance with these findings are considered in the light of the following circumstances, which are undisputed, and the rival submissions that are recorded later.

3. The appellant and the respondent were married on 26.02.2001. The respondent was in the appellant's house until the year 2003, and after the customary ceremonies when she was seven months into the family way, she was sent to her parental home for birth and confinement. The respondent gave birth to a girl child on 14.10.2003. In the year 2006, the respondent lodged the first information against the appellant and his family members for offences punishable under Sections

498A, 352, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3.1 The appellant and his family members were acquitted by the concerned Court on 23.03.2010, and this judgment is not carried in appeal. In the meantime, the respondent filed proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance with her being granted Rs.600/- per month and the child being granted Rs.800/- per month as maintenance. The appellant is one of the five children, and he lives with his aged parents in Nakre, Kukkundoor Village, Karkala Taluk. The appellant's siblings are married, and they live separately.

3.2 The appellant contends that the respondent did not come back to the matrimonial home after the childbirth because she was insistent on the setting up of a separate residence in Soodu, and though he was initially reluctant; he has caused letters dated 15.08.2005 and 28.11.2005 [Exhibits P3 and P4] agreeing to set up such residence, but the respondent did not agree. The appellant also asserts that the respondent has filed a false case in the year 2006 against him