This appeal is directed against the judgment and

decree dated 5.2.2016 passed in MC.No.5/2015 on the

file of the Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru,

insofar as the Family Court holding that the respondent

is having equal right in Sy.No.513, measuring 9.28

acres situated at Kudurur village, Karur Hobli, Sagar

Taluk, and in giving direction to alienate the subject

property, thereby sharing the sale proceeds in 50:50

ratio between the appellant and the respondent herein.

2.

Succinctly stated the facts are that the

respondent had filed petition in MC.No.5/2015 under

Section 13(1)((ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘Act’

for short) for the relief of decree of divorce and for the

property equivalent to the expenses incurred for

- 3 -

development and for purchase of the schedule property

or the present market value of the property relating to

the expenses incurred.

3.

The marriage solemnized between the parties

was registered on 17.2.2001 before the Registrar of

Marriages, Bantwala. The respondent was selected as a

Junior Engineer having cleared the KPSC examination

in the year 2005 and she was posted to Manvi

Municipality. The respondent alleged that the appellant

was staying idle at home and was harassing her

suspecting her chastity. It was contended that while she

was working in Kundapur, the property to an extent of

9.28 acres of land Sy.No.513, situate at Kudururu,

Karuru Hobli, Sagar Taluk, (subject property) was

purchased in the name of the appellant, wherein she

along with her mother together had invested Rs.10.32

lakhs. It was further submitted that on 20.1.2012, the

appellant in the presence of witnesses has executed an

- 4 -

agreement agreeing to sell the subject property and out

of the sale proceeds it would be distributed among them

in the ratio of 50:50 and also refund the amount of

Rs.3,35,000/-

obtained

from

the

mother

of

the

respondent herein. The value of the subject property

would be now more than Rs.80.00 lakhs, 75% of the

amount was invested by her for acquiring the subject

property and as such, she is entitled to the same. On

the ground of cruelty, the respondent sought for

dissolution of her marriage with the appellant.

4.

On service of notice, the appellant appeared

through learned counsel and filed objections denying

the allegations made against him and he retaliated

making certain allegations against the respondent.

5.

The family Court has framed the following

points for consideration;

- 5 -

1)

Whether petitioner proves that she was

subjected to cruelty and harassment due to

the willful conduct of respondent and thereby

committed the matrimonial offence of cruelty,

as such she is entitled to get divorce?

2)

Whether petitioner proves that she is

entitled to get the amount invested in

purchase of 9.25 acres of land in Kudururu

village, Karur Hobli, Sagar and also for its

investment

in

the

present

market

rate

towards compensation?

3)

What order?

and answered the same in the affirmative for the

reasons assigned therein, extensively analyzing the

material evidence on record. Being aggrieved by the

said judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred

this appeal.

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

argued that the family Court has no jurisdiction to deal

- 6 -

with the property. The direction issued by the Family

Court to alienate the subject property holding that both

the parties are entitled to equal share at the ratio of

50:50 and further directing the appellant to pay such

amount to the respondent being without jurisdiction

suffers from material irregularity. Learned counsel has

invited the attention of this Court to Section 27 of the

Act and contended that in any proceedings under the

Act, the Court may make such provisions in the decree

as it deems just and proper with respect to any property

presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may

belong jointly to both the husband and the wife.

Learned counsel further submitted that the Department

of Forests has initiated