1

®

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5161 OF 2019(SMA)

BETWEEN:

MARTIN SUJAY

SON OF JOHN BAPIST

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

RESIDING AT NO.426, 1^ST CROSS

NORTH EAST OF MOHALLA

MYSORE.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI: V.S.BIJU, ADVOCATE (PH))

AND:

SMT.AMULYABRINDA

WIFE OF MARTIN SUJAY

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

RESIDING AT NO.7/379

2^ND CHURCH STREET, KOLLEGAL TOWN

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI: P.RUDRAPPA, ADVOCATE (PH))

2

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 39(1) OF THE

SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND

DECREE DATED 03.04.2019 PASSED IN M.C.NO.395 OF 2016

ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY

COURT, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER

SECTION 27(2)(ii) OF THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

M.G.UMA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with

consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.

2.

The appellant-husband is before this Court

being aggrieved

by

the

impugned

judgment

dated

03/04/2019 passed in M.C.No.395 of 2016 on the file of II

Additional Principal Family Court At Mysuru, (hereinafter

referred to as “the Trial Court” for the sake of brevity)

dismissing the petition filed under Section 27(2)(ii) of the

Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Act of 1954” for the sake of brevity).

3.

The facts of the case in brief are that, the

appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife.

They are Christians by faith and their marriage was

3

solemnized on 18/04/2008 at Wesley Cathedral in Mysuru.

It is alleged that the respondent used to harass and abuse

the appellant in filthy language. She demanded for a

separate house. Even after shifting to a rented premises in

Kuvempu Nagar, Mysuru, the respondent had not improved

her behavior. Instead, she filed a complaint against the

appellant by making false allegations. Later, the

respondent left the matrimonial house and started residing

in her parents house without informing him.

4.

It is stated that the appellant had filed the

petition for divorce in M.C.No.81 of 2009, but subsequently

he withdrew the same as the petition was filed within one

year from the date of marriage. However, he was paying

monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent as

per the direction of the Court. He paid the maintenance till

April 2011. The respondent had filed C.Misc.No.48 of 2010

before the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,

Mysuru under the provisions of Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as

4

“the DV Act” for the sake of brevity) and got an ex-parte

order, directing the appellant to arrange for a house and

also got issued a non-bailable warrant against the

appellant. It is stated that the appellant preferred the

appeal in Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2013 before the

learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru,

which came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to

the Trial Court. After contest, C.Misc.No.48 of 2010 was

again allowed directing the appellant to pay maintenance

of Rs.2,000/- per month. Subsequently, the appellant filed

C.Misc.No.65 of 2014 seeking modification of the order

directing

him

to

pay

maintenance,

under

changed

circumstances, as he was suffering from hyper tension and

chronicle kidney disease.

5.

It is contended that the respondent filed MC

No.182 of 2011 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, while

the appellant filed M.C.No.435 of 2011 seeking dissolution

of marriage. The petition filed by the appellant seeking

dissolution of marriage came to be dismissed, while the

5

petition filed by the respondent seeking restitution of

conjugal rights c