RESERVED ON : 16.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 27.02.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7298 OF 2018 (MC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MURALI MOHAN KRISHNA, S/O SRI. K. LAKSHMANAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:

H.KOTTANUR, & (PO), KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 217.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. GNANI LOHITH ANAND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. A.M. LAVANYA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, W/O SRI. MURALI MOHAN KRISHNA, D/O SRI. K. MARIGOWDA, RESIDING AT: ARUVANHALLI, SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 135.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VENKATESH R.BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.06.2018 PASSED IN MC NO.133/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia)

OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED/ PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya in MC.No.133/2013.

3. By means of the aforesaid judgment, the petition filed by the appellant-husband under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of his marriage solemnized with the respondent on 18.08.2008, was dismissed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the conduct of the respondent was one of cruelty inasmuch as she has admitted in her examination-in-chief that she had levelled allegations against the petitioner and his family members, but, in her cross-examination, she has given a lame explanation.

4. It is further stated that the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down and they are residing separately for more than 10 years and therefore, a decree of divorce ought to be granted.

5. Learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 15.12.2025, passed in Civil Appeal No.5167/2012 (NAYAN BHAUMICK VS. APARNA CHAKRABORTY).

6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has contended that the appellant is registered as an advocate and has used every means at his disposal to harass the respondent. It is stated that orders were made by the prescribed Authority under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for payment of maintenance also in respect of the children of the parties, who are residing with the respondents. However, no maintenance is being paid by the appellant who is absconding at present to avoid execution and the maintenance amount remains unpaid in terms of the order of the prescribed Authority. We have perused the record.

7. The petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed by the appellant, states that their marriage took place on 18.08.2008 at Sri Magaji Dhondusa "Karthik Kalyana Mantapa" No.3/1 Rudraswamy Temple Street, behind Gavi Gangadeshwara swamy temple, Gavipuram, Bangalore-560019, as per Hindu rites and customs in the presence of family and well-wishers. From their wedlock, they have two children that is sons aged 3 years and 3 months and 1 year and 10 months. The appellant had set up a case that he is an agriculturist. All medical expenses during the pregnancy of the respondent were borne by the appellant. He used to take the respondent to the hospital during the pregnancy for routine check-up at his own expense. Initially they were leading a comfortable and happy married life, but a few days after the marriage, the relationship turned sour.

There were exchange of ha